Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Pelton Sibley

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 Unanimous Keep. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 11:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Pelton Sibley

Non-notable academic; fails to meet the general criteria in WP:N or those specific guidelines in WP:PROF. The article has a number of references, however these are not reliable sources for notability. The obituary in the N Y Times is not accessible on the web, however simply being given an obituary does not establish notability. Springnuts (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being written about in The New York Times, even in the form of an obituary, counts as coverage in reliable sources. There are probably some references available only in print for this academic. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without the source being available it is hard to say it is evidence of WP:N - the article quotes "become known as a specialist in American fiction" which is way short of the WP:PROF standards. Springnuts (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it also short of WP:BIO? --Crusio (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT obit article is available on the web [1] and is 661 words, but one has to pay for it. If all, or a sizable part of it is devoted to Sibley, then I think this is an easy keep, as with other people with similar substantial NYT obits. Mount Holyoke gives a Robert P. Sibley prize to students.John Z (talk) 22:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even a short NYT obits are sources for notability; they are, necessarily, primarily devoted to the person who died. DGG (talk) 02:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I dug up the New York Times obit (I can show it to anyone who's interested... it's 201 words about Sibley.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 05:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An obituary in the New York Times is precisely the sort of evidence that shows notability, and there's absolutely no requirement for sources to be freely available online. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Was just wondering whether it might be just a line, that the 661 words covered a dozen or more people maybe. 201 words is clearly substantial and a clear keep.John Z (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2008 (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.