Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen D. Unwin

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. Black Kite (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen D. Unwin

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

Despite it's ten-year tenure, this academic doesn't appear to meet PROF C1 [1], nor been referenced to third-party sources, nor are there other direct claims of notability under WP:ACADEMIC. It's possible that I've missed some reviews, however, that would demonstrate notability under WP:AUTHOR. Also note that the article is largely about one of this books, and it is possible that it would make sense, if this is kept, to refactor it to an article on the book with a redirect. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 03:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 03:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At first gklance ths looks more like an article about the book than the author. Is the book itself notable? Perhaps both questions could be discussed Deltahedron (talk) 07:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is not actually about Stephen Unwin (who is not a notable academic or creative professional), but rather about his book. The book itself may be notable, having been the subject of a review in the AMS Notices. If the article is kept, it should be moved and purged of irrelevant biographical details. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject has an h-index of 8 on about 150 collective citations. I think this is too low for a physics sub-topic. We might consider his book separately, but WorldCat shows it is held by a few hundred institutions. This seem very low considering the very wide interest for the subject matter. Agricola44 (talk) 15:38, 8 September 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 13 September 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:20, 23 September 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.