Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgan Reynolds

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Reynolds[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)

Weakly sourced WP:FRINGEBLP of a subject who may nonetheless meet WP:NPROF. He co-authored a book ([1]) with a very large number of cites, so there's a decent case for NPROF#1. I don't think WP:NPOL applies to someone who was chief economist for the US Dept of Labor for one year, but perhaps it does. His status as a conspiracy theorist is interesting, but I don't think there's evidence that he's notable as a conspiracy theorist. Bringing this here for consensus. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this guy passes the first prong of academic notability we have defined it too broadly. To adequately pass it you need a whole body of work that is cited, not just one book you co-authored. Reynolds does not pass any reasonably understood academic notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see any evidence that he's notable as a 9/11 truther, but one can be notable for other things and still become a crank (see also Alexander Dewdney for another such case). In this case, I think he passes both WP:PROF#C1 (enough highly cited publications, not just the one book, which I agree would not be enough by itself – he has three other publications with over 100 citations each) and WP:AUTHOR (multiple books with multiple published reviews each, not even counting the well-cited one). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

10:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the citation numbers don't seem particularly high for his field, the number of reviews on his books establishes notability per the average professor test (WP:NPROF). Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 05:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2020 (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.