Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Bronner

Stephen Bronner was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP

Does this person merit a wikipedia article?

• Keep. He's written over a dozen books. -- Scott Burley 06:57, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, I don't see what deletion criteria that article even comes close to meeting. Maybe you could elaborate? Shane King 08:46, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Appears to be more notable than the average tenured academic. Average Earthman 10:14, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, lets close this discussion in 24 hours, as this fits no deletion criteria. —siroχo 10:20, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep As the person who wrote this article and someone who keeps up to speed in the world of political theory, Stephen Bronner is one of the bestselling theorists currently alive, and one of the few academics in this field who has branched out to have an academic impact on other areas (esp. cultural -- and nominated for the Pulitzer, etc.). Furthermore, 220.240.177.30 has only made a few contributions and from what I gather his start-date here was Nov. 4th -- most of his/her contributions thus far (5 out of 9) are related to VFDing this article. Given the anonymous IP of the person who recommended this unwarranted VFD, and the aforesaid contribution history of the individual, I wouldn't be surprised if it was a disgruntled student who just got his mid-term exam back with a big "F" on it and cried for revenge. --ExplorerCDT 13:14, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you'll look at my contributions so far, you'll probably find the excessive amount of editing to be a result of following the instructions step by step, and not properly reading it through. (Much like I did when writing this post) As you can see, I haven't edited wikipedia too much, and was not too familiar with the process. As someone who doesn't keep up to speed with the world of political theory, I saw nothing to place him above any other academic. Perhaps you could edit it to make it more clear. As it is, it looks it was written by someone who likes their college proffessor a bit too much.

• Keep. Does not match any deletion criteria I know of. jni 14:23, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with early termination of this anon's[1] nomination of this article. Niteowlneils 18:17, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. Article could still use some improvement, e.g. on key theoretical (as opposed to material) contributions. --Improv 19:43, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep definitely. But if anybody's got some more info on Bronner, I'd love to see a larger article. Inky 20:22, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

*Comment: I'll take that into consideration and expand the article. Excellent suggestions by y'all.--ExplorerCDT 21:30, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Encyclopedic, relevant, factually accurate, verifiable. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 00:46, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.