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. Admittedly, this is a close one, but Black Falcon and Crunch have good points. The article has seen a couple more references added since the start of the AfD, and having a building named after him, although not explicitly mentioned in WP:BIO, is a sign of enduring notability. Grandmasterka 00:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dwight Gustafson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non notable university professor. Google pulls only 1100 hits. Some are are Wikipedia mirrors, and a few of the early hits are unrelated to the subject. Contested prod, AfD, Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete After viewing the edit history and seeing a majority of this article come from one person over the course of ten months, the aforementioned Google hits, and the lack of any really notable information in the article. Other than achieving academic administrative successes and the works he has written (which the article has not specificed any notably major performances, except for the one in Virginia) I am swayed to vote to delete. If the article can be referenced and expanded and wikified it may be worth keeping. --Ozgod 03:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as sourced. According to the article, he has a "Fine Arts Center" of a university named after him and has been awarded the highest civilian award in the State of South Carolina. -- Black Falcon 05:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment. More sources have been added to the article since a number of users (above and below) expressed their views. -- Black Falcon 06:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. It does need more sources, but it's a borderline keep. Doesn't hurt that he has a building named after him — I know that isn't a WP:NN guideline, but it doesn't hurt. 1,100 ghits isn't too bad. I could be persuaded either way, but I'm erring on the side of keep for now. Realkyhick 06:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1100 hits not too bad? Yes, yes it is. I get 976 hits - and thats mostly because of Wikipedia. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Technically, the # of ghits is not an indicator of notability or lack thereof. But speaking from my prior experience with articles at AfD (and I'm not claiming that you do not have equal or greater experience--I've not even viewed your contribution history), 1100 hits is actually rather good. That said, the figures for unique hits (excluding WP) are 963 for Dwight Gustafson and 713 for Jeffrey Gustafson. -- Black Falcon 08:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are many Jeffrey Gustafson's but only one Jeffrey O. Gustafson, and that feller pulls 976 hits (all but 30 or so Wikipedia related). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have found some sources for the article and will add them shortly. One of the sources is a news article exclusively about Gustafson here. That link doesn't work, but if you search for +"Dwight Gustafson" -wikipedia +palmetto, it is the "Greenville Online" link (click on "Cached"). -- Black Falcon 06:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, please note that almost all of the content in the article is sourced by the Greenville News article alone. -- Black Falcon 06:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As the creator of this article I've watched it be plagiarized by MSM reporters since I posted it--which demonstrates relevance and need as well as a few less savory things. DG shaped the Fine Arts program at BJU. He was dean for forty years and has a large building named for him while still alive. Hardly your average academic. Much of the information I used to write the article came from a print history of BJU rather than the Greenville newspaper.--John Foxe 11:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then the article must have a ((cite book)) citation telling us what that print history that you used as a source is. Uncle G 14:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's right there in the references: Daniel Turner, Standing Without Apology.--John Foxe 14:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 07:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete: The fame and importance of the individual seems to rest within a narrow geographical and occupational area. I.e. he's important in South Carolina and among administrators at religious colleges. Otherwise, he does not appear to have made a significant dent in public fame or public affairs. Additionally, the prose of the article is somewhat saccharine. Utgard Loki 18:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no third party source to establish that his work as an administrator is N. There is no third party source to establish that his work as a musician is N. , except a local newspaper, which I do not consider a reliable source on the question. If RS third party evidence can be presented that he is N as conductor or composer, I'll be glad to say he is N.DGG 00:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was able to find in an index that one of Gustafson's pieces, "Serenade for Strings" was reviewd in the magazine The Instrumentalist, May 1999 issue, page 80. Unfortunately the magazine is not available to me, but with luck someone else has it and can see what it says. Maybe it is a start. Crypticfirefly 06:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a citation to a music newsletter that I hope provides a bit more substance about DG's reputation as a composer. A lot depends on what you consider "third-party."--John Foxe 14:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - We've created stubs for other figures such as paleontologists who would get fewer google hits and have difficulty in getting info on on Wikiproject dinosaurs. I can see wikipedia is moving forward on verifiability but this can be difficult in some areas. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 01:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (PS: saccahrine prose is a matter for addressing POV material but is a separate issue to removing an article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 01:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep Weak delete The guy receives the highest civilian honor in his state and they name a building at a university after him because he is such a great guy? If that's not good enough to be considered "notable" I don't know what is. Crypticfirefly 05:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Apparently until recently the Order of the Palmetto was handed out fairly freely. Crypticfirefly 06:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep notable in large geo area, and has made contributions is several disciplines. Although NN internationally, conceivably a fair number of users would still search for this article. -- MightyWarrior 15:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Dean at an accredited university for 40 years, had a building named in his honor, sure the article needs rewriting, but no reason to delete. Crunch 14:42, 4 March 2007 (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.