Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doyne Dawson

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) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doyne Dawson

[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)

Unremarkable Person Mdriscoll03 (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR per the standard of having multiple reviews of multiple books each. This is also an argument for passing WP:PROF in a research area where citation counts are generally uninformative. Reviews of Cities of the Gods: [1][2][3][4]. Reviews of The Origins of Western Warfare: [5][6][7]. XOR'easter (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the above reasons, and also because he is the only historian I'm aware of writing about group selection. cagliost (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The argument above for notability through WP:AUTHOR is convincing. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets the criteria at WP:AUTHOR.4meter4 (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2019 (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.