- 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 keep. Liz Read! Talk! 07:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Stephen Murgatroyd ( | 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 have carried out WP:BEFORE and have not been able to find reliable secondary coverage of this writer, academic and consultant, so I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. I also don't think he qualifies under WP:ACADEMIC. I considered whether he is notable as the former director of the Centre for Innovative Management, but that is a redirect. I also considered whether he is notable as an elected Fellow of the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce, but that was rejected as an argument in a couple of other deletion discussions ( here and here). No obvious merge target. Tacyarg ( talk) 14:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Psychology, United Kingdom, and Canada. Tacyarg ( talk) 14:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- Tentative Keep. Not my area, but citations in GS [1] look healthy: top 728,652,617,305,259, and a further three >100, mostly with only a single co-author, enough to meet my understanding of WP:PROF. Some of these appear to be books, so will probably be reviewed, suggesting notability is likely under WP:AUTHOR too. Espresso Addict ( talk) 12:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - agree that being a fellow of the RSA counts for very little (I was one until I stopped paying the subscription!). In terms of NPROF, I guess for me the question is whether he meets criteria 1, 4 or 6. I don't know where Dean ranks at the university in question. So for me the question is the extent to which he has "made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions."
- My suspicion is that he hasn't and that this is a bit of a WP:PROMO for his post academic career. JMWt ( talk) 15:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 04:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. The administrative positions are not enough, and the unsourced material needs heavy trimming. But he has a healthy citation record ( WP:PROF#C1; [2]) and I think enough reviews of books (albeit coauthored or edited) for WP:AUTHOR: Total Quality Management in the Public Sector: JSTOR 23709628, JSTOR 45160569, doi: 10.1017/S0047279400023448, doi: 10.1002/hec.4730030411; Helping Families in Distress: JSTOR 23705293; The Comprehensive Experiment: JSTOR 1188735, JSTOR 1393002, doi: 10.1017/S0047279400016962; Helping the Troubled Child: doi: 10.1177/00208728810240010. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:NPROF#1, having 8 articles with 100+ citations each in a presumably low citation field is sufficient for NPROF. Probably also passes NAUTHOR with [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] multiple reviews of multiple books, see David Eppstein above as well. -- hroest 21:26, 3 November 2023 (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.
- 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 keep. Liz Read! Talk! 07:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Stephen Murgatroyd ( | 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 have carried out WP:BEFORE and have not been able to find reliable secondary coverage of this writer, academic and consultant, so I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. I also don't think he qualifies under WP:ACADEMIC. I considered whether he is notable as the former director of the Centre for Innovative Management, but that is a redirect. I also considered whether he is notable as an elected Fellow of the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce, but that was rejected as an argument in a couple of other deletion discussions ( here and here). No obvious merge target. Tacyarg ( talk) 14:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Psychology, United Kingdom, and Canada. Tacyarg ( talk) 14:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- Tentative Keep. Not my area, but citations in GS [1] look healthy: top 728,652,617,305,259, and a further three >100, mostly with only a single co-author, enough to meet my understanding of WP:PROF. Some of these appear to be books, so will probably be reviewed, suggesting notability is likely under WP:AUTHOR too. Espresso Addict ( talk) 12:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - agree that being a fellow of the RSA counts for very little (I was one until I stopped paying the subscription!). In terms of NPROF, I guess for me the question is whether he meets criteria 1, 4 or 6. I don't know where Dean ranks at the university in question. So for me the question is the extent to which he has "made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions."
- My suspicion is that he hasn't and that this is a bit of a WP:PROMO for his post academic career. JMWt ( talk) 15:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 04:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. The administrative positions are not enough, and the unsourced material needs heavy trimming. But he has a healthy citation record ( WP:PROF#C1; [2]) and I think enough reviews of books (albeit coauthored or edited) for WP:AUTHOR: Total Quality Management in the Public Sector: JSTOR 23709628, JSTOR 45160569, doi: 10.1017/S0047279400023448, doi: 10.1002/hec.4730030411; Helping Families in Distress: JSTOR 23705293; The Comprehensive Experiment: JSTOR 1188735, JSTOR 1393002, doi: 10.1017/S0047279400016962; Helping the Troubled Child: doi: 10.1177/00208728810240010. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:NPROF#1, having 8 articles with 100+ citations each in a presumably low citation field is sufficient for NPROF. Probably also passes NAUTHOR with [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] multiple reviews of multiple books, see David Eppstein above as well. -- hroest 21:26, 3 November 2023 (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.