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 speedy keep. The consensus of experienced editors is that further discussion here is not appropriate. (non-admin closure) Andrew🐉(talk) 11:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Martin[edit]

Dale Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Seems to be a leading English language New Testament scholar but can't find a whole lot of WP:SIGCOV for him in secondary sources, nor does it seem like it can be expanded beyond a stub Prisencolin (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Subject clearly passes WP: PROF #5 as holding a named chair (at Yale, no less). StAnselm (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per StAnselm; borderline speedy per WP:CSK #3. I have a bit of trouble believing that WP:BEFORE was done, since a seconds-long search led me to [1], which confirms that he was the Woolsey Professor of Religious Studies and [2], which confirms that he is an elected fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, looks to meet WP:NPROF fairly easily per above. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep. Nomination does not even appear to consider whether he passes WP:PROF, which he obviously does. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:PROF doesn't supersede WP:GNG though. If this subject is in fact notable, the article should surely be expanded beyond a stub.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Prisencolin: Technically maybe but in spirit you are completely incorrect here. You could equally well say that WP:GNG doesn't supersede WP:PROF. Neither one supersedes the other in the same sense that Canadian law doesn't supersede US law or vice versa — both are applicable in their own areas. GNG and PROF both have equal footing as notability guidelines that apply to different articles. One of the very first things that WP:PROF says is "This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines ... and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline". And being a stub is not even close to being a valid reason for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:56, 18 September 2020 (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.