Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasen walker

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. (X! · talk) · @076 · 00:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jasen Walker

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

This was listed under CSD as spam. However, while it currently reads like an ad, I think that he has enough publications under his belt that we should at least consider it here. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think we'd need independent sources to show notability, per criterion #1 from WP:ACADEMIC. Evil saltine (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (although an Afd shouldn't normally be started when an underconstruction tag is displayed), because third-party coverage from reliable sources is an absolute necessity.--_LittleGordon 01:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC) (banned user)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 04:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spammy, fails WP:RS. andy (talk) 07:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam? Well it definitely lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications, thats for sure. JBsupreme (talk) 09:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The lead reads a little bit in the WP:ADVERT direction and could use cleanup. However, the publication lists is quite strong, and pushed it to meet WP:AUTH and WP:GNG. LotLE×talk 23:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? The publication list is long, but since they're all written by the subject of the article they can't exactly be counted as strong as far as reliable evidence is concerned. In fact there isn't a single independent, third party reference in the article. Not one. andy (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, five items in Google Scholar, citation count 15, 7, 1, 0, 0. Abductive (reasoning) 11:30, 6 February 2010 (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.