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. There is general agreement that there are enough sources to retain and improve the article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Bickerstaff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Not notable. University professors only at rank of full professors are notable according to the Wiki guides. Adjunct professors are not professors. They are professionals not employed at universities, who teach part time or rarely or not even that. This person is an attorney. Only some attorneys are notable. He is not notable based on the criteria set for attorneys. Authorship of a book, which is neither published by a top ten publisher or not widely cited, does not make the author a notable person. Topjur02 (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Topjur02 (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Topjur02 (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I agree that being a lawyer and adjunct professor don't automatically make someone notable (nor does his legislative activity) but neither do they prevent someone from being notable for something else. In his case, we have a newspaper obituary (that is, written and published by the newspaper itself, not a paid obituary from the family or the firm), one book with multiple reviews (both in newspapers and in academic journals), and a second book on its way, from a major publisher and on a hot topic. The case would be stronger if the second book were out for long enough to have its own multiple reviews, and in that case my keep would not be qualified as weak. If the second book were not on the way, I'd suggest a redirect to an article on the first book. But as it is it seems reasonable to wait for now, and possibly revisit the case in a couple of years if the second book turns out to be a dud. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: There's now a second (paywalled) obit at Texas Lawyer (a local trade magazine?): [1]. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: borderline but meets WP:AUTHOR in my view; here are some reviews: Lines in the Sand: Congressional Redistricting in Texas and the Downfall of Tom DeLay (review), James E. Cousar, Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Texas State Historical Association, Volume 112, Number 4, April 2009; Book Review: Readings, Steve Bickerstaff, REVIEWED BY MICHAEL KING, FRI., MARCH 2, 2007 + the reviews already in the article. Wikipedia would not be improved by removing this page. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources shown by K.e.coffman Bookscale (talk) 07:56, 12 October 2019 (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.