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 Non-Admin Closure. Tiddly-Tom 07:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick J. Stephens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Potentially non notable historian, apparently according to the article a world leader in a very specific field. Prod was removed by the author following a brief discussion on the talk page. I am leaning towards delete, but bring it here so that a wider audience can comment.J Milburn (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Fairly prolific in a specific niche. That's notable. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • What are you basing the idea that he is fairly prolific on? J Milburn (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bibliography in the article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Lquilter (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Anyone who writes books that gets sold USED for 195 USD should be notable, see item 138 and 139 at this page Allmilitaria --Morphinea (talk)
• Keep per comments by nom. World leader in a very specialized field is a classic example of notability. As for verification "fighting Knives" is in several hundred US libraries, and there are eds. in other languages of it as well. DGG (talk)
• Keep Notable author in niche market. Paste (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2008 (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.