Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Allen (author)


 * 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 No consensus. Hopefully there will be some real follow-through on the various problems with tone and style. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Chris Allen (author)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This reads like a puff piece... is he really notable? Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 07:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Reads like puff. Only a handfull of GS cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC).
 * Keep needs improvement in tone and style, but EU report he is main author on is highly notable, and "leading expert" on topic of Islamophobia looks documented and justified as claim, hence meeting WP:PROF or WP:AUTH (and just plain WP:GNG). LotLE × talk  19:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Xxanthippe, does not appear to be notable.  JBsupreme  ( talk ) 06:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, career is average for a scholar at this stage, article is completely promotional and yet says nothing encyclopedic. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep and improve if needed. His work on Islam seems important and timely. Msushi (talk) 03:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Doing a little forensic analysis, it appears most of the (incredibly badly formatted) content was added in August-September 2008, by to anonymous editors. I assume that this/these anons are associated with the bio subject in some way, but unfamiliar with WP formatting.  However, the content itself–which is predominantly bibliographic entries–seems solid and verifiable.  The publication list probably does not need to have such microscopic detail in the article, but the fact it is so extensive is an awfully sign of notability, once one reads past the resume tone of the article. Whatever the identity and intention of those anons, the subject itself is very strongly notable.  LotLE × talk  04:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see how WP:PROF is met here. Lots of puffery in the article, none of it referenced. Pcap ping  22:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  22:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  22:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. By the way, the EU report was co-authored with Jørgen S. Nielsen who is far more notable than this guy, but only has a crappy unref'd stub here. Pcap ping  22:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete unless RS are found, this is promotional material. MiRroar (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, based on the 192 G Scholkar results in ; trim drastically--there are better places for his complete CV.    DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 14 February 2010 (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.