Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeb Sprague

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. SarahStierch (talk) 07:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeb Sprague[edit]

book is now in 17 libraries. NYCPubber — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.212.109.18 (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previously speedied; almost speedied again, but it's survived for a few months so I thought I'd get a stronger consensus before deleting again. Doesn't seem to come close to meeting WP:PROF; only vague claim to notability is that a few people liked his book. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hard to avoid. Hardly a handful of cites on Google scholar for his book. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No WP:RS, book held by only 3 institutions, no real claim of notability, etc. This person is a pending PhD graduate, the article is WP:SPA-created, and mostly WP:OR, suggesting article may be nothing more than for promotional purposes. Uncontroversial delete. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - PhD candidate, first book published in 2012; not yet notable under WP:PROF. --Lquilter (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are no reliable sources, and is not notable yet under WP:PROF. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ph.D. candidates are almost never notable for their academic work; even if that work is highly significant, it's too difficult to tell whether the glory for it should go to the student or to the advisor. I don't see evidence of this case being an exception. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I think that the glory of academic work in a Ph.D. program, at least in non-lab focused subjects, goes to the student not the advisor unless it's clear that the advisor is an expert in the specific subject that the student is working on. But even with a book (congrats Jeb!) at this point there aren't enough citations to pass the WP:PROF citation-based criteria and the position is a definite non-pass. (suggest early SNOW close; no need to pile it on further.) -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2012 (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.