Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Collins (academic)


 * 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. If recreated, it must be done with thorough sourcing and a better claim to notability. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Alan Collins (academic)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NACADEMIC only has primary sources. Brustopher (talk) 00:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 04:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - should easily meet WP:ACADEMIC with almost 3,800 citations and h-index of 27 at Google Scholar . —Мандичка YO 😜 09:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I was starting to think the same thing, but I'm doubting the accuracy of his Google Scholar profile. The most-cited publication (about same-sex weddings, written by someone named Ingraham) appears to be erroneously credited to him, as far as I can tell. In addition, there are several articles related to magnetic resonance imaging that were written by an AG Collins rather than this economist. I'm not sure what the actual h-index should be, but it seems a lot lower without the apparently misattributed publications (with citation counts of 362, 311, 248, 248, 145, 115, 76, 63, 63, 61... probably others). His website indicates prior work as an engineer/planner, but there is nothing about science/MR/NMR and he doesn't claim these kinds of publications on his site. EricEnfermero (Talk) 06:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. With the Google scholar profile obviously not well curated, and Google scholar itself hopeless because of the common name, we'll have to look elsewhere for notability. He's not in the top 10% of economists as ranked by RePEc (approximately 4400 economists) . He is however in the top 25% of UK economists, at number 669 out of 875 (the same ranking places the department he heads as 78th in the UK). Category:British economists and its subcategories have 529 members (possibly fewer if some people are in more than one subcategory). So I'm skeptical whether this is good enough for WP:PROF, but maybe it's close. His book Playing the Love Market has one academic review that I found  and his edited volume Cities of Pleasure has two  . These give a plausible but quite weak case for WP:AUTHOR. But I'm not seeing anything that makes notability clear, and I'd rather not let a bunch of lesser things add up to more than they are. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Definite keep -- His faculty biography describes him as "Professor" and head of department. In UK sense, that alone should be sufficient for a keep.  That links to a list of publications, listing over 80 articles, starting in 1992.  That is a significant body of work.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - The biggest problem here is that this is an unsourced BLP. Carrite (talk) 12:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unsourced BLP. Source now or bye byes. Szzuk (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete If this is kept then it needs to be cut to a one-sentence stub for lack of references. It fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment (voted above). This is NOT UNSOURCED.  His faculty biography is here.  The reason why BLP articles are required to be sourced is that otherwise they may be libellous.  However, that source, on his university website, while not independent is unlikely to be false.  How does it fail WP:ACADEMIC?  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * He's failing WP:V - there's no need to read WP:Academic. Typically if an unverified article is challenged with an AFd the onus is on the AFd participants to verify the topic is notable with reliable secondary sources or it gets deleted. This is particularly the case with BLPs, it is possible WP could get sued for vandalism of the page when he isn't even notable. Szzuk (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2015 (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.