Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Lamb (professor)

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

William Lamb (professor)[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)

I don't think he meets NACADEMIC or GNG. There's almost no secondary coverage and he doesn't meet any of the obvious NACADEMIC criteria, no named professorship, significant reviews of his books, etc. While it's true that he's occasionally been cited by the media, I don't think that's enough to make him notable. Here are Google Scholar results; no publications make 50 citations. Zerach (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Citation counts too low to meet WP:PROF#C1; no other notability evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this should be added to the Scotland-related deletion discussion list. Dunarc (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see the significant independent coverage I believe is needed to meet WP:GNG. My search didn't find evidence that he meets any criteria of WP:NPROF. Papaursa (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2019 (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.