Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Kegel

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 no consensus; could possibly pass WP:PROF #1, 8. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Kegel

Interim president of a college, no other citeable facts. MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF: [1] "Dr. Charles H. Kegel served I.S.U. with honor and distinction for 25 years as professor of English, Dean of the College of Liberal Arts, Dean of Faculties, Acting I.S.U. President, and Academic Vice President." JJL (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROF is about academic honors; being dean, president, etc. are administrative positions. The footnote in WP:PROF that suggests otherwise is misguided. It may be that there are actually reliable sources about Kegel, but there is no sign that his academic credentials would meet the standards listed at WP:PROF. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment per Criterion 6, he seems to qualify. JJL (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, that's exactly what I am saying. "The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society." Dean and president are not academic posts, footnote 13 notwithstanding. It's questionable whether every administrator of every academic instrituion is notable, but certainly they are not all notable for their academic achievements, which is what WP:PROF is supposed to be about. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment I'm with Carl on this, acting president for one year doesn't pass WP:PROF in my eyes, The ISU english dept awards a scholarship to one undergrad a term in his name [2], and the Liberal arts building is named after him [3]. I think these go towards WP:BIO rather than WP:PROF. Here is a Google Scholar search. I don't think it shows he passes WP:PROF (h-index 3), but the publications are late 50s/early 60s and in a discipline I know too little to judge. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The scholarship is named after him because he established it in his will; this is what they mean by "This award derives from the Charles Kegel estate ..." I am very interested by the building, though. There are not that many buildings on a college campus, so having one named after you is some sort of award. Unfortunately this all predates the web. I wonder if I can find the local newspaper in a database. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WeakKeep "Acting president" can mean many things, but in this case the additional offices show notability. Next step is no find his academic work, because even for what at the time was not a first rate university, one does not get to be full professor without a something: WorldCat has what would nowadays be considered a marginal amount [4].DGG (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A Google book search shows that his work on Salinger is impactful, possibly enough for WP:PROF #1. I don't think Google scholar is the right tool for finding citations to humanities studies from the 1950s. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Also possibly meets WP:PROF criterion #8 (editor-in-chief of established journal). He seems to be close to meeting several of the criteria, which one could argue suggests that he meets at least the more general criterion #1.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - from the google scholar [5]]. Are they his? He was professor for over 2 decades, V.P. (Does not matter he was acting or something, he played the position an administrator). I will say "Yes". I'm having fun here.

--Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 12:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes, the GS results are his. DGG (talk) 03:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious that this one is notable, really... Just another defamation magnet we don't really need. delete ++Lar: t/c 04:11, 27 April 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.