Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Willison

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. Primarily due to the policy of verifiability (and thus obviously no prejudice against undeletion/recreation to fix it), but if the person fails WP:POLITICIAN but passes WP:ACADEMIC, the weight should reflect it. slakr^\ talk / 04:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Willison

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

Delete. Academic and unelected political candidate, whose article as currently written does not provide any substantive or properly sourced evidence that he actually passes either WP:ACADEMIC or WP:POLITICIAN. Article is sourced almost entirely to dead links, almost all of which were invalid primary sources (i.e. his bio on the website of the university where he works) even when they were live; the only still-extant non-primary source here is a simple table of the vote totals in his district in the 2004 election, which is not a source that can legitimately confer notability on a non-elected candidate. There are claims here that could potentially put him past WP:ACADEMIC if they were properly sourced, so I'm fully prepared to withdraw this nomination if the article's sourcing can be improved, but in its current state it's a pretty clear delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk

Keep. GS h-index of 27 [1] in a well-cited field passes WP:Prof#C1. Political activities don't rate. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

If you replaced "passes" with "would pass if the article were actually referenced to a single reliable source at all", I'd probably agree with you — I said right in my initial rationale that I was willing to withdraw the nomination if the sourcing improved. But as a WP:BLP, he's not entitled to keep a standalone article that doesn't actually cite any legitimate, substantive and/or non-primary sources at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless the article is completely rewritten, WP:POLITICIAN is more relevant to it than WP:PROF, since it only mentions his academic employment in passing and is more focused on his candidacy. And as an unelected candidate he doesn't pass. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Xxanthippe (talk · contribs) above and he's in Canadian Who's Who [2], which confirms positive professional assessment of his notability. Barney the barney barney (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then source it properly. A WP:BLP is not entitled to keep an unsourced or primary-sourced article. Bearcat (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2014 (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.