Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leon Stover

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. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Stover

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

Fails both WP:ACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR. White Whirlwind 咨 01:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think he passes WP:PROF and I'm not sure about WP:AUTHOR but he passes WP:GNG (with an obituary published in the Chicago Tribune and an entry in the Science Fiction Encyclopedia among other sources) and that's good enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- PS I just added six reviews for four of his nonfiction books to the article. So WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF are also back in play (well-received books and book reviews being more the currency of academic notability than high citation counts and h-indexes for this kind of subject). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable author, and apparent would meet WP PROF as an expert in his field. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Other encyclopedias include him.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:05, 27 February 2015 (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.