Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Bigel

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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Bigel[edit]

[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)

Looks to fail WP:NACADEMIC. Previous prod in 2018 Carver1889 (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Carver1889 (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither his Google Scholar citation record nor his academic profile [1] show anything that could plausibly be used to pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't pass PROF and I didn't find GNG-level sourcing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indication of meeting WP:NPROF, as he had low citation numbers and no high academic position. Curbon7 (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2022 (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.