Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bradley J. Macdonald


 * 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Bradley J. Macdonald

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:PROF. 1) No indication of significant impact on their field of work. 2) No highly prestigious award. 3) Not a fellow or a "distinguished" professor. 4) Per point 1. 5) No major offices held. 6) Per point 5. 7) No indication of general notability. 8) Not a head of a major, well-established publication - note Associate Editor, not Editor. 9) Does not meet WP:NAUTHOR as his books have received little attention from independent, reliable sources. All nine points of WP:PROF failed, delete.  Dr Strauss   talk   15:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. This seems a borderline case to me, a fairly typical and successful scholar but not one who stands out in any way. He has two books (not counting the two edited volumes) but I only found one review for each, not enough for the low bar of WP:AUTHOR, and in this area I think it is books rather than highly-cited journal papers that are more relevant. Managing editor of Strategies is not the same as editor-in-chief. Our article inaccurately said he is an associate professor; actually he was promoted to full professor in 2007 but that is not a notability criterion. So basically, I can't find a strong argument that he passes any notability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete subject does not meet notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Doesn't meet GNG and a Gscholar check was not promising. L3X1 (distænt write)  16:19, 10 September 2017 (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.