Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. W. MacKenzie


 * 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. JForget 01:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

D. W. MacKenzie

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

An article about an academic who appears not to pass WP:PROF, and in addition is completely lacking in third-party sources about its subject. A recent prod and a notability tag were removed without improvement. Most of the "publications" listed here appear to be reviews, and I wasn't able to find more than 2 citations to any of his works in Google scholar, far below the usual standard for WP:PROF #1. There's no evidence that he passes any of the other criteria, either. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. As noted above, he doesn't pass the specific criteria at WP:PROF, and without sources, the article doesn't pass WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Obvious delete Even if all claims made are correct, it doesn't make a case for notability. Fails WP:PROF. LK (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - no reliable source to establish notability, no evidence the person actually passes the particular guidelines for academics.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as original PRODer. I have been trying to source unsourced BLP Economists, but I really did struggle finding anything for MacKenzie. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 10:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets the relevant criteria for notability found at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Moorsmur (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Since this is obviously a topic of discussion, could you suggest which criteria we ought to be looking at more closely (1-9)? - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 08:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF. Scant citability, no significant academic awards mentioned, no journal editorships and nothing else in the record to show satisfying WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. SPA-created vanity bio. WoS shows 1 article that's never been cited and 5 book reviews, all also never cited. No credible evidence of meeting any other part of WP:PROF – This is an uncontroversial delete. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:14, 1 June 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.