Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard J. George

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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richard J. George[edit]

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

Came across this article and it seems it will languish on Wikipedia for ever, heavily templated, unless we form an opinion on it. Professor George's claim to notability is very weak and the sources are mainly self-published. The one possible route to importance may be his 3-year Peck Fellowship research appointment, but personally I'm not sure this is enough on its own to meet WP:PROF. Sionk (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on current content. Almost all the citations are to the subject's own web site. The only other citation is to the web site of the university where he is on faculty. Of course, such a deletion should be without prejudice to re-creation if he is later determined to meet WP:PROF. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This looks like a classic case of working hard but not making an impact. He lists a lot of books authored, but some look self-published, the holdings of them shown by worldcat are tiny, and I can find no reviews of them, so I don't think any of them are good enough for WP:AUTHOR. The article claims that he's quoted frequently in the press, but all I can find in Google news archive are stories by him in some small presswire service rather than anything actually picked up by the media, and in any case we need nontrivial coverage of the subject rather than sound bites by him. And his top-cited publications in Google scholar (not counting the Australian guy with the same name who studies groundwater) are 66 and 30 for two business ethics papers, then 22, 6, 5, for an h-index of 5, too small to make a case for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:43, 4 November 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.