Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Haas (political scientist)

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. Clear consensus that notability is met, along with an equally confirm consensus that the article needs major work Nosebagbear (talk) 14:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Haas (political scientist)[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)

This person does not appear to meet any criteria for notability. and for a WP:BLP includes a lot of unsourced or poorly source material. JeffUK (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Terrible article, notable person--his book on Bush is cited in lots of places, and he, as a political scientist, is widely cited in academic articles, according to JSTOR. This article just needs an objective editor. Drmies (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See also the related discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political Film Society, on an organization founded by Haas. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Also see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1084#Users Isabelle Helm and Mikehaas and the article history. If kept, this article may need to be protected against autobiographical and COI edits. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Terrible article, notable person. I agree with Drmies above. Otto (talk) 10:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but trim heavily as has just happened. Meets WP:NACADEMIC criterion 1 by citations to his books and review articles. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:27, 16 November 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.