- 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) SL93 ( talk) 21:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Adrian Holliday
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Adrian Holliday ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I found no significant coverage. None of the references are secondary. SL93 ( talk) 01:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SL93 ( talk) 01:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Four-digit citation counts for five works, massive for communication studies, easy pass of WP:PROF#C1. Not as strong in book reviews but still seven reviews in JSTOR for three books is enough for WP:AUTHOR as well. I don't buy the argument that I've seen elsewhere that full professor in England is automatically enough for WP:PROF#C5, but it is at least also suggestive. The nomination gives no hint that the nominator has considered WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR, and has maybe not even tried WP:BEFORE, as it speaks only to the references present in the article itself. — David Eppstein ( talk) 04:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
-
David Eppstein I did say "I found no significant coverage." I did not say, "I found no significant coverage in the article". I don't appreciate you assuming bad faith. There is no chance of the article being deleted at this point, so maybe just focus on the aspects of the article and not assume stuff?
SL93 (
talk) 14:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe I should have been more clear, when I said "The nomination gives no hint that the nominator has considered WP:PROF". Significant coverage is not relevant for WP:PROF. Secondary references are not relevant for WP:PROF. Nothing in the nomination statement is relevant for WP:PROF. So either you didn't consider WP:PROF or you don't understand WP:PROF. Which is it? —
David Eppstein (
talk) 17:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- That guideline never came to mind, but the author one did. Does that make your smug self happy?
SL93 (
talk) 19:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Happy? That someone nominating articles on professors for deletion would not even call to mind our notability guideline for professors? No. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- That guideline never came to mind, but the author one did. Does that make your smug self happy?
SL93 (
talk) 19:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe I should have been more clear, when I said "The nomination gives no hint that the nominator has considered WP:PROF". Significant coverage is not relevant for WP:PROF. Secondary references are not relevant for WP:PROF. Nothing in the nomination statement is relevant for WP:PROF. So either you didn't consider WP:PROF or you don't understand WP:PROF. Which is it? —
David Eppstein (
talk) 17:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
-
David Eppstein I did say "I found no significant coverage." I did not say, "I found no significant coverage in the article". I don't appreciate you assuming bad faith. There is no chance of the article being deleted at this point, so maybe just focus on the aspects of the article and not assume stuff?
SL93 (
talk) 14:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) SL93 ( talk) 21:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Adrian Holliday
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Adrian Holliday ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I found no significant coverage. None of the references are secondary. SL93 ( talk) 01:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SL93 ( talk) 01:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Four-digit citation counts for five works, massive for communication studies, easy pass of WP:PROF#C1. Not as strong in book reviews but still seven reviews in JSTOR for three books is enough for WP:AUTHOR as well. I don't buy the argument that I've seen elsewhere that full professor in England is automatically enough for WP:PROF#C5, but it is at least also suggestive. The nomination gives no hint that the nominator has considered WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR, and has maybe not even tried WP:BEFORE, as it speaks only to the references present in the article itself. — David Eppstein ( talk) 04:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
-
David Eppstein I did say "I found no significant coverage." I did not say, "I found no significant coverage in the article". I don't appreciate you assuming bad faith. There is no chance of the article being deleted at this point, so maybe just focus on the aspects of the article and not assume stuff?
SL93 (
talk) 14:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe I should have been more clear, when I said "The nomination gives no hint that the nominator has considered WP:PROF". Significant coverage is not relevant for WP:PROF. Secondary references are not relevant for WP:PROF. Nothing in the nomination statement is relevant for WP:PROF. So either you didn't consider WP:PROF or you don't understand WP:PROF. Which is it? —
David Eppstein (
talk) 17:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- That guideline never came to mind, but the author one did. Does that make your smug self happy?
SL93 (
talk) 19:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Happy? That someone nominating articles on professors for deletion would not even call to mind our notability guideline for professors? No. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- That guideline never came to mind, but the author one did. Does that make your smug self happy?
SL93 (
talk) 19:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe I should have been more clear, when I said "The nomination gives no hint that the nominator has considered WP:PROF". Significant coverage is not relevant for WP:PROF. Secondary references are not relevant for WP:PROF. Nothing in the nomination statement is relevant for WP:PROF. So either you didn't consider WP:PROF or you don't understand WP:PROF. Which is it? —
David Eppstein (
talk) 17:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
-
David Eppstein I did say "I found no significant coverage." I did not say, "I found no significant coverage in the article". I don't appreciate you assuming bad faith. There is no chance of the article being deleted at this point, so maybe just focus on the aspects of the article and not assume stuff?
SL93 (
talk) 14:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)