Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teppo Felin

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 keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teppo Felin[edit]

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

(Self-)promotional article about a seemingly non-notable professor. Of the three references in the article two are about books that were co-authored by Felin (with several others), and make no mention at all of Felin, while the third simply points to his page at Oxford, showing that he works there, but does nothing to establish his notability. And from what I can see he does not meet any of the criteria for "basic" notability listed at WP:PROF. Thomas.W ^talk 13:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. His professor title, in the English system, means a bit more than in the US system, closer to a distinguished professorship. And his Google scholar profile shows enough highly-cited papers to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. But it's only a weak keep because there seem to be so few secondary sources available about him or his work that could be used to put some meaningful content into our article. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Update. Some additional information has been added to the article, including editorship of the journal Strategic Organization. This gives him a case for WP:PROF#C8, but again only a weak one, since he is one of four co-editors-in-chief. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was able to add a little more background from his web page at Oxford, and there's further possible material there and on WorldCat. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 4 October 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 03:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep In my experience, the citation record is marginal relative to our PROF C1 criteria, but "marginal" meaning "at the margin", neither below it or above. it. I don't see particularly painful promotionally issues in the existing revision, so I lean keep. --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree I cannot quite understand from the available material just why Oxford awarded him a professorate, but I can only assume that this is my deficiency in knowledge. It would be absurd to think that I'm the more reliable judge ... DGG ( talk ) 08:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have been unable to confirm this, but his description as a professor of strategy (and not the professor of strategy) would suggest he holds a personal chair and not an established chair. The latter at Oxford certainly would qualify him for notability per WP:NACADEMICS #5 (as the majority of established chairs in the UK are not actually named), but I'm not sure the former would. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 7 October 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.