Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C. Liegh McInnis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. postdlf (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
C. Liegh McInnis[edit]
- C. Liegh McInnis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Although on first glance McInnis looks like he should pass WP:PROF as a journal editor, Black Magnolias is a self-published journal that he founded, and it doesn't appear to be a "well-established" academic journal. Likewise, all of his major works are self-published through his own publishing company. Google Scholar does not show him to be widely cited or published outside of his self-publishing. There are few articles about the man himself in the mainstream press. He fails to meet the bars of WP:GNG and WP:BIO, and any claims to WP:PROF notability run afoul of WP:SPS. ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. He's been quoted a few times in newspapers, but the lack of in-depth third party coverage means he fails WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per well-researched nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete. While I suspect the subject may one day warrant an article, there simply isn't enough supporting information to have one at the moment.Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. Deyyaz [ Talk | Contribs ] 04:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nom has already done all the legwork here. Agricola44 (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2011 (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.