Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Inkster

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. (soft) slakr^\ talk / 02:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Inkster

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

Non notable individual. No reliable sources to prove notability. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unrefernced BLP and as such procedurally should be WP:PRODded. He might meet WP:PROF#C3, as a fellow of the Royal Historical Society but it is unreferenced and I can't find him in Who's Who or Debrett's which is the first place to look. here is his academic directory page. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Not eligible from BLPPROD, due to the byline in the linked Taipei Times article near the end.. BLPPROD's remit is very narrow. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't believe Fellow of Royal Historical Society meets WP:PROF#C3; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzannah Lipscomb for why. (The short version is that their membership requirements say you only have to write one monograph to be a fellow and I don't think that's the sort of distinguished academic level we're looking for with C3.) No opinion yet on Inkster specifically. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 18:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. The book reviews quoted in the article could possibly be enough for notability but this would need a ground-up rewrite to become encyclopedic. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is a horrid article, but that is curable. My more major concern is thay the books are still work in progress. F.R.Hist S. should not in itslef be enough for notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2014 (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.