Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corin Depper

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. However, I would be glad to refund this to userspace if the primary author would like to continue working on it as a draft. bd2412 T 02:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Corin Depper

[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)

No significant coverage from secondary reliable sources could be found to show notability. Fails WP:GNG

Has not received prestigious award or position. Works have not been said in independent reliable sources to have had a significant effect on the scholarly discipline. Fails WP:NACADEMIC~ Araratic | talk 01:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 02:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable under WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Deleted some of the extraneous wikilinks apparently intended to confer notability by textual proximity, but there are many pointless wikilinks remaining, none of which effectively mask the basic non-notability of the subject. Google Scholar citation results are low even for a low-citation humanities discipline, regular Google finds no news hits whatsoever, publication output is not particularly distinguished, and there doesn't seem to be much else to build a notability case on. He has been near notable people, and has written about notable people, but that seems to be it. Bakazaka (talk) 04:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Article author). This page should NOT be speedily deleted because Dr. Corin Depper is one of the very few specialists on memory affiliated to Film Theory in the world, the film expert member-researcher of The Memory Network (AHRC) and a leading specialist on the works of such figures as JG Ballard. His works are fully referenced in many books by authors published by leading publishing houses and is also a published author himself and supervises Phds. The wast majority of scholars who most impacted their respective fields did not "win awards" that doesn't mean they don't deserve to be acknowledged. Moreover, most awards are backed up and financed by private companies with undeniably subjective interests, being therefore intrinsically biased. Being the only film expert from hundreds of scholars member on the Memory Network IS a "prestigious position". Speedy deletion nomination is not only unjustified, counter-productive but also unfair. An endless plethora of extremely obscure reality TV stars or youtubers' long pages are up on wikipedia for no acceptable reason. Such film theorists are perfectly legitimate on wikipedia. The actual point of the argument is that it is extremely difficult for modern Film Scholars' works to get any visibility, so it would be detrimental that even the free access general knowledge wikipedia would censor Dr. Depper's page.------------ 00:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4HcxdV9x (talk • contribs)

4HcxdV9x, I've removed the section header from this comment because a) it's unnecessary and b) it can interfere with TOC formatting on transcluded pages, raising accessibility issues elsewhere. Bakazaka (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep: Even without "other stuff exists", this does seem quite worthy and well-sourced. RobinCarmody (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've attempted to improve the article in form and content, but it turns out that the subject has only one peer-reviewed article and three book chapters as their main scholarly output since their PhD 15 years ago, with very little impact in any measurable sense. "The Memory Network" has dozens of "members" and the subject is not a PI or co-PI, so membership is not a significant honor or position (in fact, there is contact information on the website in case anyone here wants to become a "member"). I had to scrape up a quote from a book review (by Ballard expert D. Harlan Wilson) to find something positive to add. For all we know Depper may be a treasured colleague, beloved teacher, and smart scholar. But he does not pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Bakazaka (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete All of his publications have a total of 10 citations which doesn't show WP:NPROF is met. I also didn't find the significant independent coverage that shows the GNG is met.Sandals1 (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a film studies prof who has written a PhD thesis and published a handful of papers none of which are widely cited. No notability found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Delete. Less than 10 cites on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Subject has no RS that I could find for WP:GNG. No evidence to meet NPROF. Article has a PROMO aspect (the "The Memory Network", the "ELMCIP"). Britishfinance (talk) 10:17, 14 February 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.