Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Henningham

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) | Uncle Milty | talk | 00:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Henningham[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. his academic and writing career is unremarkable. and the article has a number of primary sources. the coverage I've found is about him making comments in the media rather than him as the subject. LibStar (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he's in Who's Who in Australia. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

that is not a criterion for meeting WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he's in Who's Who in Australia. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

that is not a criterion for meeting WP:BIO .LibStar (talk) 11:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Who's Who ref (the commonwealth Who's Whos report on notable figures, unlike the US one which doesn't have a high standard of inclusion). And the citation of him as important for being the first Professor level (high in commonwealth countries; usually enough in itself for keep) journalism researcher is enough. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - awarded 1st PhD in Journalism in Australia. I think that alone would indicate notability. Combined with everything else, this is an easy case for passing the PROF test. Bearian (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2013 (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.