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 delete. A bit of a strange AfD indeed. The strongest arguments come from David Eppstein and Guillaume2303, who offer specific points about whether WP:PROF is met.--Kubigula (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

H. Lee Cheek, Jr.

[edit]

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

Reason Hydrogen Mike (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC) — Hydrogen Mike (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

While Dr. Cheek's accomplishments are notable, I'm not sure that it warrants a wikipedia entry. There are other academics who are much better known who have no entry. Much of this article is identical to Dr. Cheek's faculty page found here: http://www.drleecheek.com/Biography/biography.htm

Keep. Appears to meet WP:PROF; whether other "more worthy" subjects have articles or not is irrelevant. Yes, there are problems: for example, the article appears to have been largely written by the subject which is discouraged, but these are clean-up issues - not cases for deletion. RichardOSmith (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Old Professor; the criticism of the professor is unfair. I know his books, and they are very important in his field. KEEP THE ENTRY! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.157.145 (talk) 23:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even the nominator admits he is notable. The fact that more notable people lack articles should cause the nominator to create such articles, not try to delete this one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I don't believe this entry is necessary.Beezler (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC). — Beezler (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The article doesn't present any strong evidence of passing WP:PROF. His many books would give one plausible avenue for notability, but that needs evidence that they've made an impact. His administrative positions are not high enough for WP:PROF#C6. And the election to the Academy of Philosophy and Letters hints at #C3, but it's a new organization founded in 2007 with no secondary sources and it's unclear to me how large and significant it is. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is clearly a vanity piece. As mentioned by previous users, all of this info is available on Dr. Cheek's personal page. Writing numerous books without knowing their true impact makes this entry very dubious. It does not belong on wikipedia in my view.Hosty36 (talk) 13:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC) — Hosty36 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 14:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. For many of the reasons already listed above. I most especially echo David Epstein arguments. In addition, I just completed a search of JSTOR. Dr. Cheek's bio seems to indicated that he has had works appear in the Journal of Politics. This is actually quite misleading as he has no published articles in the journal. His book on Calhoun was reviewed by three different journals, including JOP. The JOP review and the Journal of Southern History book reviews were overall negative about the book, while the one in the American Political Science Review was generally positive. Based on this, I do not see that his works are notable enough or have had enough impact to warrant a Wikipedia article. The claim that he has had "works" in the Journal of Politics is misleading at best. As a result of this new information, I've changed my vote to strong delete.PolySciJoe (talk) 04:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete This is a strange AFD, I have to say. It is not often that one sees an AFD proposed by an editor with just 19 edits and then several other "newbies" and anonymous IPs chipping in, but not as so often happens to !vote "keep, he's important!", but voting both ways. Although I am very willing to assume good faith, this makes me think that more is going on than is perhaps in the open. Nevertheless, like David Eppstein, I cannot find enough sources to support notability of this person. He's not listed in Web of Science and the number of citations in even Google Scholar is very low. I agree with PolySciJoe (15 edits...) that having published in a journal (or not, as the case may be) is not really very important (what counts is whether these publications have made any measurable impact). As it stands, I don't see any evidence that this meets WP:PROF. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:34, 7 January 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.