Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Christopher Hayes

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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Christopher Hayes

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

Non-notable assistant professor / adjunct professor and attorney. Only claim to notability is "first non-Korean to work for the Constitutional Court of Korea", sourced to the subject's blog (although apparently a copy of an article from the Korean Times, but just to announce he was starting to contribute a column to that paper). The article was created by Sean123ct (talk · contribs) with what seems to be all content-based edits made by that user or Seanhayes74 (talk · contribs). Both of those users' edit histories are solely to promote Hayes or his blog, and given the user names are likely Hayes himself.

Every source in the article is to either Hayes's law firm or Hayes's blog.

Article was PRODded in June 2014 ("not a notable person") and dePRODded (by a non-Hayes editor, I should note) a few days later with the edit summary "probably notable", which I suggest is generous.

I'm not persuaded that being the first non-Korean to work for a particular court is notable. An elected or appointed position, maybe, depending on the position. This is a long way away from Jackie Robinson. I'm likewise not impressed by the assistant professor and adjunct professor positions. "Adunct" usually means a part-time teacher who just comes in to teach an occasional class.

The newspaper columnist position is likewise non-notable. TJRC (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's comprehensive analysis. Charitably I would say he is not 'notable' yet. Sionk (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to meet any WP:NACADEMICS criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 05:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was the editor who originally PRODded it. There is no real claim to notability. JDDJS (talk) 05:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete I can find no evidence of notability. Unless I've missed something, or User:DGG remembers the reason he thought this attorney "probably notable" when he un-prodded it last summer. DGG is usually pretty good at sorting AFD. E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete looking back, I should have let it get prodded. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above fails WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:38, 7 May 2015 (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.