Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jody Armour

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 SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) SkyWarrior 04:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jody Armour[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Only reference is to the university they teach at. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The person holds or has held a named chair appointment... at a major institution". Roy P. Crocker Professor of Law at USC wouldn't apply? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any response from the nominator, who continues to bring articles to Afd with scant rationales, I default to keep per WP:NACADEMIC, if nothing else. This is a named chair faculty position at a major educational institution. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Formal pass of WP:Prof#C5. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C5 and dubious WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE deletion rationale. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though not a stellar rep of academic decorum, this person is clearly notable per se by virtue of his position. Agricola44 (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per Shawn in Montreal. If someone is inclined to describe the context of the subject's work, here's some fairly detailed coverage of Negrophobia and Reasonable Racism: [1] [2]. EricEnfermero (Talk) 08:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:Prof#C5. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes the notability guidelines. Lepricavark (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes Academic #5. Some of the above statements make me think there are sources that could be used to flesh out this article, although people have to make sure to abide by BLP standards.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2017 (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.