Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Barkley Means

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 keep. Will redirect John B. Means to John Barkley Means so anyone can perform the merge as required. Davewild (talk) 08:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Barkley Means

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

Unable to find any non-trivial reliable sources independent of the subject to establish notability. The subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:PROFESSOR. J04n(talk page) 20:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the two articles are on the same subject:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge the two to John Barkley Means Well, I learn something new every day. Maybe the nom will, too. According to WP:PROFESSOR, John B Means meets criteria 5, which states
- "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research."
The article states that he retired from Temple University as Professor emeritus, a title that Wikipedia defines as "typically awarded for 'long and distinguished service'". Thus, Dr. Means meets criteria 5, making the subject notable. Article needs some cleanup, but I don't have the money to pay for articles from newsbank. I see some stuff from the 80s in the Philadelphia Inquirer, stuff from the late 60s, etc, etc. Article has WP:POTENTIAL, and since it's notable, I say keep it and expand. Vodello (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. "Professor emeritus" does not satisfy WP:PROF #C5. In typical US academic usage, it does not denote any special distinction; it basically just means "retired professor". Professors who retire may on occasion be denied emeritus status, but it's very rare. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry that I confused WP:PROFESSOR distinguished with retired distinguished. Makes perfect sense. Proceed to easily destroy article with one click. Vodello (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This one is easy. Keep and merge per above. AfD is not needed for a simple merge. Bearian (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the problem is that to date we have no sources that verify this information. It appears that they exist but they are behind a paywall. Without the sources this remains an unsourced BLP. If it is decided to keep this article before sources are found, I suggest it be userfied to someone that is willing to obtain sources or sent to the incubator. J04n(talk page) 19:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge per above. He seems to have met WP:ACADEMIC but verification is hard to come by. However, it is verified that he was a department chair at a major university [1], and that would normally be enough per WP:ACADEMIC. (I am adding that reference to the article, so it is no longer an unsourced BLP.) He gets a number of mentions at Google News archive, unusual for someone in his field, but they are mostly behind paywalls [2]. He founded and led a society but it's not clear how notable the society is under Wikipedia standards. --MelanieN (talk) 05:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I found several articles that verify his status as director of Temple University's Center for Critical Languages, but I do not have access to the full articles.
  - "TEMPLE GETS A GRANT TO OVERHAUL INSTRUCTION IN SPANISH LANGUAGE". Philadelphia Inquirer. 19 April 1989.
  - Michael Shoup (14 February 1982). "Speaking local tongue can enrich traveling". The Sun (United Kingdom).
- That's all I can do for now. Vodello (talk) 05:34, 6 November 2010 (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.