Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew K. Pace

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew K. Pace[edit]

Completely fails notability standards per WP:CREATIVE -- no independent third party reliable sources giving nontrivial coverage that would in anyway give any sort of indication of notability. Of the two books, one doesn't appear to ave an ISBN, and being an author of a single book that is not notable, etc., is nowhere near our criteria. Article was also created as a response to another AFD, which seems to be a WP:POINT violation. I;d have prodded this, but the peron who created it has a history of deprodding tons of articles with no reasoning, so he'd no doubt deprod his own. DreamGuy (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - nominator has a history of disagreement with article creator; not a good basis for discussion. . .Rcawsey (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - The subject of the article is notable, and a quick search on google will find over 1,000 hits[1]. This is a bad faith nomination for deletion. Prior to nominating this article for deletion, DreamGuy removed an external link from the article [2] in an obvious attempt to weaken the article's claim of notability. I have since undone this change and added further links and references. The nominator, DreamGuy, is a well-documented wiki-stalker of mine. He has nominated this article, that I created, for the purpose of harassing me. The article needs to be expanded, not deleted. Esasus (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Esasus' comments Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as President of LITA, a significant specialty professional organization. Also head of a major department of OCLC, but I am not sure that would be sufficient. Just one notable book, with a number of reviews in the librarianship journals. [3] But Library Technology Reports is a journal, with long single-issue articles; what he wrote for it was an article, v. 38, no. 2, 78 pages long, not a book, though writing one for them is a non-trivial thing to do--counts basically as a book chapter in a collected work. As for prejudice, The link removed was to his author page on amazon [4] listing his two publications and saying nothing else--that does not count as weakening the claim of notability. As for the feeling between the two eds. here, I would suggest a discussion elsewhere. I & others have had some problems with each of them, though to different extents. DGG (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Notability has been established. freshacconci talktalk 01:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previouses. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just did some cleanup on the article (per MOS), and after some research it was clear that he's definitely notable. Yes, the article needs work. Yes, there were some ELs that needed to go—but that just means the article needs work, not that the subject isn't notable. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 03:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per cleanup done by Dori. Nice job. And to Esasus, it may simply be that DreamGuy is doing some new page patrolling and is not a case of stalking. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AfD is apparently related. --Crusio (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed... different article, possibly a hoax, that included informations that were actually about this Andrew K. Place. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DGG made his case quite well. Dream Focus 13:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per DGG, well said. -- Banjeboi 18:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. New sources added to article are largely primary and don't add up to notability; one-year presidency of subgroup of ALA and writing a column for their trade magazine doesn't create notability, either. I am mystified by the keep !votes. THF (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.