Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Lord (academic)

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. ✗plicit 03:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Lord (academic)[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)

Non-notable academic. Despite what the article says, he is not a professor--references from his college specify he is an Assistant Professor. Very few assistant professors are notable, especially those still in their second year. He has a great many publications, but Google scholar shows that none of them have been cited more than 13 times. Therefore he fails WP:PROF. All the references are either the announcements and faculty page from his college (which are reliable for plain facts, but not for notability ) or directory listings, or interviews with him where he says what he cares to. Therefore he fails WP:GNG. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's my impression that law is a low-citation field overall, so low numbers on GS aren't very indicative one way or the other. However, I'm also not finding a lot in the way of news coverage [1][2]. XOR'easter (talk) 04:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This bio is so over-the-top, especially for an academic profile, that I almost find it hard to believe. It could almost be tagged for being too promotional. And, strangely, the article creator authored an article (now a redirect) on a completely different Phil Lord so I sense some family connection or other COI. But the bottom line is that I don't believe this assistant professor is notable by Wikipedia's standards. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pass of WP:Prof. BLP is so boosterish that I wonder if it is a joke. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. It is difficult to see how any Assistant Professor can be notable unless it is for reasons unconnected to being an Assistant Professor, and that is not the case here.--Bduke (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Subtly promotional and fails to meet any criterion from WP:NACADEMIC. Celestina007 (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG fails WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:41, 4 January 2022 (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.