| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Contested deletion edit
I feel this speedy deletion is premature for a simple reason: Tim Rood is one of the world's leading experts on Greek historiography. As such, he is a very significant contributor to his areas of research. His presence on Wikipedia is, it seems, quite well-justified according to the criteria set out by Wikipedia -
- 'The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.'
The topic is certainly not short-term interest, nor "a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity". It is supported by a significant number of independent sources. A quick Google search will undoubtedly show his impact on his field.
I would be grateful if PlanetEditor could explain why he/she considers the topic to have no importance. This would give me a chance to address these concerns.
- Provide third party coverage. --PlanetEditor (talk) 09:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- I've declined the CSD tag. As an academic, Rood is covered by WP:PROF, one of the few notability guidelines that acts as an alternative to (rather than an expansion of) WP:GNG. He appears to meet at least criteria #1 and #2, and probably meets #4 as well. More sources would obviously be great, but there's enough here that speedy deletion under A7 is clearly not appropriate. Deletion would have to come from discussion at AFD, or not at all. Yunshui 雲水 11:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)