Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Mendenhall

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. ✗plicit 14:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Mendenhall

[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)

Non notable individual. Refbombed primary sourced spam that screams of UPE. Lacks independent coverage about him. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Law, Alabama, and Georgia (U.S. state). Skynxnex (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:NAUTHOR notability looks possible. I found two reviews [1][2] of the same work. There are Kirkus reviews, but they are in the pay-to-play "Kirkus Indie" program, and do not contribute towards notability. If NAUTHOR notability were found, then the article would need to be reworked to focus more on that. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:PROF and WP:NAUTHOR notability strongly exists. Article can be expanded further in terms of this profile's notability as scholar and author. Chris.lee auth (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Chris.lee auth (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Delete. I see no case whatsoever for WP:NPROF. Insufficient reviews for WP:NAUTHOR have emerged, and I did not find them on my search. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding to comment explicitly that I don't think editor-in-chief of Southern Literary Review meets NPROF C8: it is neither a journal per se, nor well-established (founded in 2004). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No case for WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR. Most sources currently in article are very short or do not focus on Mendenhall.

Cyanochic (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above discussion. He’s not a full Dean nor a named professor; he’s an associate Dean. He’s not at a prestigious university. His legal career fails my standards for lawyers. 50 articles are nice, but there’s no evidence of impact, or citations. It’s evidence of churning, not scholarly research. Also, Why would anyone advertise his work for one of the most scandal ridden judges in recent American history? If this is kept, any middling Dean or school superintendent can can get an article here. Bearian (talk) 03:11, 9 October 2024 (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.