Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Crispin Miller

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. RL0919 (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Crispin Miller

[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)

Fails all relevant notability guidelines. No significant coverage in reliable sources per WP:GNG, no indication that his research has had a significant impact in his field. He has not received a highly prestigious academic award or honor nor is he a member of a prestigious scholarly society or association per WP:ACADEMIC.

Sourcing is terrible with the only citations worth anything being a frontline interview and an article in the Observer. This despite having a BLP ref improve template since 2008. Bonewah (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete Per above, I am the Nom.~~ Bonewah (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. See WP:AFDFORMAT for more information. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just added ten reviews of three of his books to the article. There are probably more; I didn't search carefully for the other titles. I think that's enough for WP:AUTHOR. He has three publications with over 100 publications each in Google Scholar, a borderline case for WP:PROF#C1. And I think the coverage of him (separately from his books) in Guernica and the Observer (already in the article) and in the Journal of Promotion Management (doi:10.1300/J057v10n01_16) make a strong case for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. I added a sentence about the subject's social views from the Frontline interview which was missing from the article. StonyBrook (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I am having trouble viewing this as passing either WP:AUTHOR#4c or WP:PROF#C1. The PBS interview does not get him past WP:GNG in my eyes because the subject of the discussion is today's youth and not Crispin as a youth. We are not given a biographical sketch from this source. Also fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:N.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @TonyTheTiger: Why 4c of AUTHOR? I was thinking of criterion 3: his work is the subject "of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". —David Eppstein (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG per sources provided by David Eppstein. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NAUTHOR per sources provided by David Eppstein. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY due to good work by well-known skeptic David Eppstein. Bearian (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NAUTHOR C3 seems to be the best case, but the GNG and NPROF aspects help support. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:03, 15 December 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.