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 No consensus -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J. Bernard Hogg[edit]

This article clearly does not meet the criteria for notability at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). If improvement is made and it meets one of the criteria, it could be saved I suppose. - Tim1965 16:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - may be notable, but there's no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources to demonstrate notability per WP:BIO. Delete unless more sources are found by the end of this AfD. Walton monarchist89 17:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created the article. If the end result of this process is deletion, i request that the article be moved into my user space for future expansion and possible revival. Richard Myers 21:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 11:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, historically notable; I've expanded and added sources. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 11:27Z
Keep, shows promise and includes a source thanks to Quarl's update. --RazorICE talk C @ 11:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources added by Quarl Alf^Photoman 14:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient books and now sourced.DGG 03:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Admittedly a professor with some publication. The publications listed are a dissertation, one article from non-peer reviewed Pennsylvania History, one 41 page book on local church history, locally published, not widely held, see OCLC 16220230, and a 69 page book on a local organization, also locally published, and not widely held, see OCLC 78798582. I don't see how that makes him a notable academic. Aside from his obituary and the campus newspaper, no one has written about him. --Bejnar 05:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to asert notability. Only 1 ref. NBeale 15:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - this is one area where wikipedia can rise and flesh out the richness of history and heritage that gets lost otherwise. Seems to me more notable in many ways than many other biographical pages. Noability is subjective, I feel the sources mentioned are sufficient, even if localised cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 01:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Am i allowed to vote, as the article's creator? Not sure. But if it is permitted, i vote: extra strong keep. ;-) Richard Myers 06:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per expansion and sourcing by User:Quarl. This is a valid stub article. -- Black Falcon 08:36, 7 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.