Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Cutrone

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. L Faraone 00:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Cutrone[edit]

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

This subject fails WP:PROFESSOR by a mile, and also clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. JFHJr (㊟) 19:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We only create articles for the select professors who are WP:N. This means they go beyond the normal role of the professor and pass WP:PROF or WP:GNG. I see no evidence that this subject does and by virtue of his adjunct title tend to doubt that he does.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the "adjunct" but the "assistant" in the subject's job title that makes notability unlikely. Many adjunct professors are very notable, but pursue other professional interests so only have part-time professorial positions. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2013 (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.