Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Hunt (professor)

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) feminist (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Hunt (professor)[edit]

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

Non-notable academic. Fails WP:PROF. The article is largely a list of courses that he has taught in the past and appears to have been created as a vanity article. Bueller 007 (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His Chancellor's Professor title (policy on this title) gives him a pass of WP:PROF#C5, and I suspect that one can find sufficient reviews of his books to also pass WP:AUTHOR. AfD is not for cleanup, and calling this a "vanity article" is both a personal attack and a violation of WP:BLP, but I removed the list of courses as I agree they are non-encyclopedic. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. I also think he has a case based on his citation record. He doesn't seem to have a GS profile, but a GS search turns up numerous triple-digit-cited entries related to sociology and law. EricEnfermero (Talk) 19:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes at least WP:PROF#C5. Also, I turned up reviews of his books: [1][2][3][4][5] (I'm guessing there are more, but I stopped looking). XOR'easter (talk)

I've added those reviews and two more to the article. XOR'easter (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I might be convinced to change my vote if people actually add additional sources to the article. Wikipedia articles should show that the subject is supported by multiple sources. It is time Wikipedia was open and transparent about sourcing, and if editors are not willing to do this, we need to delete the articles involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- meets WP:PROF and likely WP:AUTHOR, with multiple books publised by academic publishers. This is not routine output. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. The books are meaningless, but having a chaired professorship means that he should stay. Bueller 007 (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2017 (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.