Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Wilson (criminologist)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Wilson (criminologist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I have marked this article for deletion because the author does not seem to pass the notability test for academics, or for that matter the general notability tests. In particular, the article has no secondary sources and there is no evidence in the contents of the article that the author has made a significant impact within their discipline. The article has been marked for two-and-a-half years as failing the WP:ACADEMIC tests and no one appears to have added anything in that time that justifies retaining this article. That said, this is the first time I've nominated an article for deletion and it's only based on my reading of the two cited guidelines.144.82.171.231 (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I am completing this nomination on behalf of the above IP editor, using the rationale posted on the article talk page and at WT:AFD. I remain neutral. jcgoble3 (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 03:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 03:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 05:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Gscholar h-index of 4, which is insufficient for WP:PROF, and there appears to be no other claim to notability.  Ray  Talk 10:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. The citation counts for his papers that I'm seeing on Google scholar are in the teens, not enough to convince me of a pass of criterion #C1. And the total lack of third-party sourcing in the article is also a problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2013 (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.