Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royce Engstrom

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. per WP:SNOW. Closing this early as it is unlikely to have a concensus on deletion (non-admin closure) Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 15:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Royce Engstrom

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG TheLongTone (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A university president is usually considered notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Montana. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:46, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. President of a major university fulfills NPROF C6. JoelleJay (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:SK3, inadequate nomination. Perhaps the nominator could explain why they think the many in-depth news stories about him easily obtained by searching his name in Google News do not count towards WP:GNG, why we should only consider GNG when WP:PROF is separate from it and relevant, or whether they even tried WP:BEFORE. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SK3. No indication as to why this individual is non-notable by the nominator, considering that they were president of a major state university and thus fulfilling Criteria 6 of WP:NPROF. Article needs fairly substantial expansion and cleanup, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. nf utvol (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Nebraska, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article may be a stub, but this person definitely seems to be notable, with them having been president of a large university (meeting the guidelines of WP:NPROF) and having significant coverage in at least one reliable secondary source. Article expansion would be preferable to deletion. ApexParagon (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Clearly meets WP:NACADEMIC criterion 6, with the presidency sourced. I should note that most people who would qualify under WP:NACADEMIC wouldn't be able to meet the GNG for want of sourcing. Researchers, professors, and university administration doing their jobs don't generally warrant a mention in the back pages of a newspaper. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof on citations as well. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. Second AfD nomination in a month for a page created by this new Wikipedian that's destined to close as a WP:SNOW keep. Let's keep WP:BITE in mind before these kinds of nominations and the discouraging effect it has on new editors and their contributions. BBQboffin^{grill me} 05:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

which was the first one? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jotham Bradbury Sewall, I think. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject meets WP:NACADEMIC C6. I added some sources to the article, but article could certainly be expanded further because it seems like there was a lot happening during his tenure at UM. There's lots of basic news coverage as well as columns of people analyzing his administration: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] Zzz plant (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2025 (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.