Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple Hauptfleisch

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. Consensus is that the person is probably notable, but that the article as nominated was utter junk. It has now been rewritten, so the issue seems to be resolved. Sandstein 16:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Hauptfleisch[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Person is not note-worthy but have a little significance, the article has only one source and I think it is unreliable or is affiliated with the subject, possibly autobiographical. Mediran ^{talk to me!} 07:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a grotesquely bad article as it stands, but as to the basic question of whether the subject has any notability, I can find him described as a "theatre luminary" in the Cape Times in 2008: [1] (via Highbeam, subscription reqd). There is also a brief biography in this book. AllyD (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, WP:GNG, and probably anything else you want to name. The article itself is an example of how not to write an article--just a long mishmash of unsourced WP:RESUME and probably WP:AUTO as well. Qworty (talk) 01:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is terrible and probably an WP:AUTO WP:RESUME but I think it might pass WP:SCHOLAR on possibly four points:

SCHOLAR #1: There are a lot of citations under Google Scholar and Worldcat, but I don't know how to use these for AfD purposes - what sorts of numbers do we look for?

SCHOLAR #5: Chair of the drama dept of the University of Stellenbosch (1995-2005)[2]

SCHOLAR #7: Head of the Centre for South African Theater Research of the Human Sciences Research Council (a South African government agency).[3]

SCHOLAR #8: Executive editor of the South African Theater Journal [4]

If the article is kept, I'll work on parring it down based on sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In an attempt to calibrate the citation numbers, I searched for articles on South African Theatre rather than searching for Hauptfleisch's name (he has articles with citation counts 46, 27, and then smaller numbers, not really convincing of WP:PROF#C1 by itself. I found a few other authors with bigger impact: Coplan & Wright '85 (472 citations), Kavanagh '85 (128 citations), Kruger '99 (78 citations). But Hauptfleisch's papers were still in the mix, so I think it's fair to call him a leading expert on the subject. Is that enough? I'm not sure. But re Green Cardamom's comment: he clearly does not pass #5 or #7, and the case for #8 is dubious. (Is this a major journal?) #5 is for endowed chairs (that is, "The So-and-so Professor of X"), not department chairs, and #7 is for heads of universities, not heads of centres. So I think the only hope is #1. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Seems to me to satisfy WP:SCHOLAR on several grounds, as stated above. The quality of the article, advanced as an argument by all delete votes so far, is irrelevant, and the bald and false assertion that it fails probably anything else you want to name is most unimpressive. (The information in the article is actually not too bad, but agree the article is terrible for other reasons.) Andrewa (talk) 06:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per above. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Probably notable, but blank and stubify the thing, it's terrible as it stands. LK (talk) 11:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate from scratch. The subject does appear to pass WP:SCHOLAR, and so we should have an article on him. This, however, is not it, and is frankly so unusable that my recommendation would be to delete it entirely and create a new article from the ground up. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Per the above suggestions I have entirely rewritten the article as a short stub. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2012 (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.