Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond J. Noonan

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. SarahStierch (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond J. Noonan[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability as per WP:SCHOLAR, WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR. While the subject IS published there is no indication that his work rises to the level of notability required for an article. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can't decide if the subject's work is enough to meet our criteria or not - it is a narrow thing, on first glance. May review this one later, so someone ping me if more information comes out. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The lack of sourcing is one thing, but the claim and backing seems to be out there. Publisher mini bio helps a bit.[1] The sexquest website could be a primary, but hasn't seen activity since 06. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. User:Randykitty left a note on my talkpage asking if I could comment here. As much as I hate to reduce the visibility of a sexology topic or sexologist, I am having trouble locating enough RS's to meet the notability requirements for this BLP. I did an OVID search, and found only 5 published works, the most recent of which was >5 years old, and I couldn't find >any< publications in peer reviewed journals. The websites describing Noonan also appear old/outdated. (Even Noonan's own website, [2], appears to have been last updated in 2004.) I cannot locate an h-index for him (which possibly relates to his pubs not being in journals). I have not been able to find book reviews of the works Noonan co-edited. So, overall, I am having find evidence of meeting WP:BLP and have to support the nomination.— James Cantor (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well researched note by James Cantor -- I very much appreciate expert opinion weighing in pro or con in AfD. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. James Cantor's opinion is based around WP:BLP, but his research is enough to convince me that there also isn't a case for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per James Cantor. Misses WP:ACADEMIC, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 07:21, 9 June 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.