In today's world,
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne B. Hales is a topic that has captured the attention of many. Whether due to its relevance in today's society, its impact on daily life or its influence in the professional field,
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne B. Hales is a topic that continues to generate interest and debate. For years,
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne B. Hales has been the subject of study, discussion and analysis, and its importance has not stopped growing over time. In this article, we will explore the different aspects of
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne B. Hales, its evolution over the years and its relevance today. Through various approaches and perspectives, we will shed light on this topic that has caused so much talk.
- 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. Stifle (talk) 07:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Wayne B. Hales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability seems lacking. Ironically, the page was created by one Johnpacklambert. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 09:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Utah. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 09:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: Why is it "ironic" that the page was created by JPL? Curbon7 (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- Presumably because, before being topic-banned, JPL was known for placing drive-by "delete, not notable" comments on many AfDs. But he tended not to do that for LDS figures, such as the subject of this AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment
leaning Delete. Presumably Johnpacklambert felt that presidency of Snow College was the determining factor for notability, given its prominence, but it does not seem a sufficiently prestigious institution to me to pass WP:PROF alone. I'm not sure what weight to put on Brigham Young University history materials, presumably they are fairly indiscriminate? Not finding anything in GS to speak of. (Is Johnpacklambert permitted to participate in deletion proposals on his own articles? It seems a little unfair otherwise.) Espresso Addict (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- Poked around in the WL some more after A. B.'s finding below, and found another short obituary JSTOR 26222396 (that the Ebsco search somehow missed). Think there's enough now to go with Keep. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. I was briefly confused by A.B.'s link because it combines a listing of fellows of some other society (not including Hales) with an obituary of Hales. But the obituary states the AAAS Fellow claim and I verified his listing at https://www.aaas.org/fellows/historic, I think good enough for a pass of WP:PROF#C3. The existence of two independent published obituaries (not paid death notices) in professional journals also makes a case for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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.