Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roderick T. Long (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roderick T. Long[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Roderick T. Long (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability under WP:NPROF, WP:NAUTHOR, WP:GNG or any other relevant criterion. There isn't a single independent third-party RS cited; the article references are primary cites, blogs, and thinktanks the subject works with. Is there any independent third party coverage of Long in solid RSes? I asked on the talk page a few weeks ago for any such sourcing, to no response. I'd be happy to be shown wrong, but it would be most useful if it could be shown. David Gerard (talk) 21:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

C1 Xxanthippe (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]
The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. Finding these independent RSes is the precise thing the article doesn't demonstrate, and that I couldn't find evidence of. Where are they? - David Gerard (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have you taken a look at the GS link, six inches above, which gives several 100 references to his work? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Google Sources link counting isn't an independent third-party RS we can use for a BLP. Else the article would be, in its entirety, "Roderick Long has several hundred hits on Google Scholar." I suggest this is absolutely insufficient for a Wikipedia BLP.
Do you have any Independent Reliable Sources, as Wikipedia articles are required by hard policy to be based upon? - David Gerard (talk) 08:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Long's works have not been the subject of extended external commentary in reliable sources. Apart from partisan niche corners, I do not see much discussion at all or documentation of the lasting impact of his work. czar 04:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Czar. It appears that no significant coverage exists. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 04:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:PROF#C1 would in principle be a way to pass, but the citation profile just isn't strong enough (manually tabulating the h-index gives a value less than 20, even by the permissive standards of Google "we'll index anything" Scholar). No editor-in-chief position at a first-rank journal, so there's nothing for WP:PROF#C8. One book without formally published reviews is far below the standard of WP:AUTHOR. XOR'easter (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NPROF, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roderick_T._Long_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1055263312"