Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob East

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bob East[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No evidence of coverage in independent, third-party sources, much less any in-depth coverage in reliable sources. The majority of the article is sourced to the subject's profile page on his publisher's website (Cambridge Scholars, a self-described independent publishing company, not to be confused with Cambridge University Press). The rest of the sources are Amazon (referencing the existence of his books) and passing mentions of him as a political candidate, but nothing that comes to close to meeting the GNG. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to meeting notability guidelines for writers, academics, nor politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I have significantly rewritten the page, removing irrelevant material. I also added 3 IRSs. I have left the list of Publications and Articles, although I could not find any references to them, including from a search via the ProQuest database of Australian and NZ newspaper articles (which is much broader and deeper than Google). The IRSs I found all related to his brief commentary on a single kidnapping event in 2011, and while he is referred to as an expert, they are far from substantial and I don't feel meet GNG. I could mount the argument WP:TOOSOON but the subject has been 'expert' for over a decade and not obtained IRS coverage in that time. I would be inclined to delete the page.Cabrils (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, and I wouldn't exactly say too soon, but probably never. The books are almost un-noticed, and he is one of a number of victims. The general arcticle on the terrorists is more than enough--and in fact, needs considerable pruning of the section of him. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Just to clarify, unless I'm missing something, East is NOT "one of a number of victims"-- he is cited as an expert commenting on the victims, so I'm unsure what you're referring to here. Cabrils (talk) 01:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His works appear to have citation counts in the low single digits, not enough for WP:PROF#C1. Writing multiple books is not enough for WP:AUTHOR; we need multiple reviews of those books and I found only one review of one book [1]. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As as been said, doesn't seem to pass WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2021 (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.