Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Painter (2nd nomination)

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 , nac, SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Painter

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

Now that it's off the main page and ~~inclusionist excuse #1,254,689~~ speedy keep criterion #6 no longer applies, can we try this again? Same reason as last time: Only notable for two things, being on the Bush cabinet and suing Trump. KMF (talk) 01:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep We have WP:BLP1E, but WP:BLP2E is a new one on me. This does not appear to be a valid argument for deletion. Apart from the two claims to notability the nominator mentions, WP:NACADEMIC #5 applies, "5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research". Edwardx (talk) 10:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 with a GS h-index of 21. Also #C5. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Subject meets the GNG and the other criteria mentioned above. Puzzled by the nominators comment "only notable for two things" which seems to undermine his own argument (such as it is). Philafrenzy (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Multiple clear passes of different notability criteria. Nominator fails to advance a valid rationale for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Holds a named chair. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is an equally ridiculous and obvious attempt to delete information on someone who is critical of Donald Trump. The man has not only worked in the Bush administration, he is also a professor (which alone would suffice) and a pundit on several channels. Don't feed the trolls! --Bernardoni (talk) 03:22, 10 July 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.