Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Fagan

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2015 March 5.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Delete comments point out lack of independent reliable sources, and assertions that the topic is a leading authority often cited by others has been challenged. Comparing the comments with what is available in the article, the delete comments hold up. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Fagan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. My research has found no independent sources that discuss, interview or talk about Fagan other than routine coverage. Article itself doesn't provide any sources that meet GNG. I like the guys work, and own some of his books, but can't see how he is notable. Shudde ^talk 07:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shudde ^talk 07:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shudde ^talk 07:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has plenty of citations in google scholar. As one of the leading rugby league historians, I'd say he meets the "widely cited by peers or successors" part of WP:AUTHOR. Doctorhawkes (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know where you get the "plenty of citations" or "widely cited" - I find one work by him that has been cited all of 16 times. He is mentioned in other articles, but mentions do not establish notability. The big problem with the article itself is that 6 of the 8 references are BY him, not about him. #8 is just a library catalog listing of his book, and #1 doesn't mention him at all. In other words, there is not one reliable source. LaMona (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Close call. In the interests of moving this process along, my opinion is that this seems to be a recognized experts in his field of historical study and is thus worthy of inclusion, even if the sourcing is very borderline. Carrite (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dismal GScholar citation record, absolutely insufficient to pass WP:ACADEMIC. Neither do I see any evidence of this person passing WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. As for the above !vote, if this were a "recognized authority", there would be sources confirming this. --Randykitty (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2014 (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.