Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Hosking

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 03:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George Hosking

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

May fail our general notability guidelines and I'm also fearing the same in relation to WP:ACADEMIC. SarahStierch (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - he's described as an "international expert on the prevention of violent crime"[1] and his work has been widely reported over a number of years [2][3][4] and he's been called to advise the Scottish Parliament [5]. This could probably squeak him over the WP:ACADEMIC threshold. Mind you, his work has been accused of demonising parents and there's rather a lot of flattering, uncritical WP:PUFF in the article that needs removing. As for the 'Order of Zand', it sounds more like something from Lord of the Rings and I can find nothing online about it, other than draft Wiki articles. It's a bizarre claim that does nothing to inspire confidence in the article! Info was added and rapidly removed from en.wikipedia in 2010. Sionk (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough (if anything) on GS and GN. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
At best, weak keep though I seriously wonder whether WAVE is not a one-man band, and therefore how notable it and its directors are. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2013 (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.