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. J04n(talk page) 17:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Bede Scharper[edit]

Stephen Bede Scharper (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)

Page reads like a resume. Page created by User:Prof2012 about a person who is a university professor? Please. I particularly like the nice Amazon links at the end of the article so you can buy his books. Recommend delete. Suttungr (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how/where this discussion proceeds (perhaps someone could guide me). But as the originator, I wish to argue for its value as a page describing a notable scholar/author on environment-social ethics and a popular TV commentator on religious, environment issues. De-link the Amazon links if need be, but the fact remains, TVO, The Agenda (an important Ontario-based news show), and CBC Tapestry (CBC radio) have him often as a panelist because of his value as a writer and scholar. He has also been nominated for "Who's Who" in Canada. Pof2012 —Preceding undated comment added 21:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. GS cites are 18, 7, 2. Far too low even for an indifferently cited field. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete for failing WP:PROF and WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 06:46, 17 April 2013 (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.