Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C.T.R. (Charles Thomas Robert) Hayward

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 keep. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 16:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

C.T.R. (Charles Thomas Robert) Hayward[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPROF or WP:CRIMINAL. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Several books published with highly reputable academic publishers for which reviews can undoubtedly be found in relevant journals. There seems to be no doubt whatsoever that he is notable, but I hesitate to vote to keep it because it is a BLP and his academic accomplishments seem likely to be overshadowed by other issues. --Hegvald (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. meets several criteria of WP:PROF. Two books by OUP indicates scholarly distinction for anyone, and indicates he is an authority within his field. Additionally, he was president of the major international society within his field, SOTS. If a person is notable for his academic accomplishments, they are notable, regardless of other issues in their life. We;re writing an encyclopedia , not considering him for employment. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He doesn't appear to pass WP:CRIMINAL, but he does pass WP:PROF (per DGG) and WP:AUTHOR (through multiple published reviews of his books: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]). We should mention the conviction, because it's an important part of his life story, but its non-notability doesn't negate any of the other notability of the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Per David Eppstein, who has pretty much nailed the case for WP:PROF. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets at least one of these WP:PROF criteria: 1, 3 or 6.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed with DGG and David Eppstein that he meets WP:NPROF guidelines for notability. Acebulf (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:AUTHOR & WP:PROF. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2018 (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.