Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Fawell

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. The consensus was that the subject did not meet WP:PROF, as only one of the six participants felt that he did. The other keep vote felt that the subject weakly met WP:AUTH, but I considered this argument to be sufficiently rebuted in the discussion. Rough consensus to delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

John Fawell

John Fawell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

This appears to be a run-of-the-mill professor. I can't find any significant impact that he has made in his field, nor can I find significant mentions of him in reliable, third-party sources. He has won an award, the Peyton Richter award, but that appears to be handed out by his college and not of the national/international scope required by WP:PROF. ThemFromSpace 04:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 05:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. GS cites are 3, 3, 2, 2. That seems to be all. Not remotely enough cites to pass WP:Prof (minimum numbers required are usually around 500), particularly for somebody who works in the area of pop culture. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC).
• Weak Keep Three academic books is enough for notability . GScholar counts do not work in the humanities,, at least for recent works, where references are very slow in coming. Better to judge on the basis of the views of the referees for the publishing houses., Weak keep only, because they are not the very major publishers. His books are in 207, 329, and 125 WorldCat libraries, which is another good way of judging importance. Needs a check for reviews of them, which would show notability as an author regardless of wp:prof. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. I searched Worldcat and the web for a while, but could not find any third-party reviews of Fawell's books. As noted above, the citation record is also rather small. There is nothing else in the article indicating WP:PROF notability (such as journal editorships, awards, etc) and I could not find much else at the Boston University website. He does not seem to have a personal webpage there and the only page I found was from the college faculty info[1]. There is also something that looks like an interview with him in the Boston University newspaper about one of his books. [2] In a case like this I would want to see more than just the library holdings data for demonstrating WP:PROF notability. Nsk92 (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Weak keep on the basis of WP:AUTH rather than WP:PROF: three books that could plausibly be of general interest, each held in a reasonable though not large number of libraries. However, I tried and failed to find reviews of the books and I think he does not pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

How can his creative output be "significant" per WP:AUTH if no reviews of it can be found? ThemFromSpace 06:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Delete I did some searching and found that while he is a prof. and author, he does not appear to be notable at this time. Wine Guy Talk 08:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

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.