Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Hassel

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The result was Speedy Keep, nomination withdrawn. WP:NAC.--Jmundo (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Hassel[edit]

Biographical subject that upon initial review doesn't (I don't think) meet our notability standards. All of his article's sourcing is essentially made up of his own work. rootology (C)(T) 22:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. rootology (C)(T) 16:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 06:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment Google scholar search books published by Brookings Institution cited by 66 & 63, h-index of at least 9 by GS. As for WP:BIO, I see no evidence of any coverage of him as a subject in any reliable secondary sources. Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His principal books The charter school challenge : avoiding the pitfalls, fulfilling the promise are owned by over 800 & 1300 US & Canadian libraries, respectively, and published by a major non-profi publisher. This is enough to shown him as an authority in his field. DGG (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which guideline is that from? Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals, Wikipedia:Notability (people) in general, and Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Criteria doesn't seem to fit either? rootology (C)(T) 14:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROF criterion 1., but one can also regard him as an author, since many of his works are intended for a popular audience. He has published a total of I note that the use of h indexes for people working in the applied social sciences is not valid; the limit is set by the number of total works, and ignores that books are more important than journal articles. I have added the books and holdings to the article. I did not expect to actually have to meet skepticism that someone with multiple books with around a thousand library holdings each is notable. I should perhaps have anticipated it, for in various AfDs I have seen a considerable skepticism over the significance of those working tin the field of education, as compared to the sciences. There will also be reviews--the author of the article should have listed them; I am only to a limited extent personally capable of making up for the deficiencies of all the editors in this field--perhaps some of the skeptical people ought to help look for these. DGG (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing it up. That's notable enough for me. rootology (C)(T) 16:38, 2 January 2009 (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.