Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Bradley


 * 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. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 00:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Anthony Bradley

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Deleted prod. Subject of the article doesn't meet WP:PROF (associate professor), and Google Scholar does not show close to enough citations to meet WP:AUTHOR. No significant secondary source coverage to speak of. agt x 18:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  19:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Agtx Did you do follow any of the other kinds of approaches to verifying notability listed in WP:BEFORE, or did you just run a google scholar search?  I ask because this dude doesn't look all that obscure or hard to source to me.  Yes, the page needs improvement, sourcing, but AFD is not the place for that.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I did, but I found almost solely primary sources. He's got some op-eds in a newspaper, bios at the organizations he works for ( and ), and some press release type articles . There is a puff piece and a C-SPAN interview, but I don't think that's enough. There is also an attack blog that I won't link to. I don't think this is about improving the page. I think this is about someone for whom we have basically no secondary sources, and who doesn't meet the guidelines for academics or authors. That said, I'm quite sure my Google search history is slated against showing me the kinds of results that Bradley would end up in, so if I'm missing something, I'd love to hear about it. agt x  15:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Certainly profiles at organizations he works for don't count for notability,   but holding a place at a scholarly think tank like Acton Institute is an indication of some degree notability. Of course, one person's "puff piece" is another person's profile,  I would say that a profile like this in Black Enterprise goes at least half way towards establishing the WP notability of a young professor.   I would say this  interview in the Christian Post  goes the rest of the way. KeepE.M.Gregory (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Here he is in First Things evidence that he is being taken very seriously as a Christian thinker.  I found both this and the Christian Post by googling his book titles; he has such a common name.  I do think this AFD is a slam dunk.  He needs a better article.  don't they  (almost)  all.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not really a mention though is it? The author of the piece just happens to be in a compilation of essays of which Bradley was an editor. I get the common name problem, and I see that Bradley's getting a little press (Black Enterprise and Christian post), but these are sporadic. I think we could go either way here, but if we're keeping out associate professors generally, I don't think this guy is any more notable than any other associate professor. agt x  19:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Lot's of asst. profs. have pages; lots of full profs. don't. It's about how influential your scholarship is, but also about how much press coverage you get; especially profiles and in-depth interviews..
 * Just added another long author interview, in order to delete this article you would have to ignore Book TV, at least 2 long interviews in the Christian Post, each about a different book, the profile in Black Enterprise and a lot of coverage that comes up in searches of his name on news google, more or less demonstrating that he's a guy who gets called on by the mainstream press to comment when stuff happens in black communities.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The profiles that exist establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:37, 22 July 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.