Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Powell (author)

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. Courcelles (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Powell (author)[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)

Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO more broadly. No significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:RS found in search or really any sources I could find at all. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in relation to Australian biota - important author. JarrahTree 12:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How does he meet WP:AUTHOR? Being important is not the same as being notable. LibStar (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet NAUTH as his writings have not had significant reviews nor been on best seller lists (AFAI can tell). Some of his writings appear in Google Scholar but the citation counts are not high (low 2-digits). I don't know what other criteria for notability he might meet, but he doesn't meet author nor scholar. Lamona (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2023 (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.