Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew C. Banfield

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew C. Banfield[edit]

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

Highly promotional article on an academic that doe not pass WP:PROF. No published books, only a few journal articles, none cited more than 9 times DGG ( talk ) 13:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Quite odd for a Senior Lecturer to have so few publications, but appears not to pass WP:PROF. Joe Roe (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This might go some way towards explaining why. Nothing else useful found. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 15:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thanks for the link, H₃OOH. It makes it clear that he really is a junior academic and that the apparent failure to pass WP:PROF is not because we're missing something important. (It also raises troubling questions about his role in papering over a hostile work environment but I don't think we need worry about that here — it's not a notable role, so far.) —David Eppstein (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. TOOSOON, as is typical with junior-level academics. Agricola44 (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON and not meeting WP:PROF. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2016 (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.