Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Hill (professor)


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 19:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Dave Hill (professor)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't pass WP:ACADEMIC. Additionally, BLP is significantly unsourced with excessive detail, like a CV. czar  &middot;   &middot;  05:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 07:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. There seems to be a definite instance of promotion/advertising here, but looking beyond that there seems to be at least a minute support for notability with the current references section. I don't know, maybe I'm missing something, but I can see this one scraping by at least the general notability guideline. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:PROF, WP:NOTRESUME, and WP:MILL. Visiting professors today are non-tenure-track, all too common, and often rank below lecturers and instructors (as they have short 2- or 3-term, i.e. one-year contracts). I can't see how he passes WP:GNG without WP:SIGCOV. There's lots of online 'Optimal Resume'-type websites for that. Please, convince me otherwise. Bearian (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 10:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * R to Bearian: Visiting professorships if there is no other professor title do not pass WP:PROF, but the title shouldn't be read as per se meaning someone does not have a full academic appointment somewhere. Lots of professors travel for a year or two and take a visiting professor title elsewhere, while still maintaining a "professor" title at their home institution. Here the lede says that he is "Research Professor in Education at Anglia Ruskin University, Chelmsford, England".  --Lquilter (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - In addition to his papers, he is founder of a journal & series editor for Routledge. Google Scholar (certainly not the best resource for education) on "Dave Hill education" shows a number of relevant papers with fairly high citations -- 64, 90, 67, 65, plus lots more. A fairly large number of publications with significant citation in education suggests to me that he is in fact well-known ("notable") in his field, as does the discussed significant involvement in professional meetings, societies, scholarship, etc. --Lquilter (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't use those Google Scholar numbers as a metric for anything. In your examples, most of the actual citations appear to be self-citations. What WP:SCHOLAR criteria do you suggest he has passed? czar   &middot;   &middot;  15:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. There is some evidence for academic notability in the citation record, but not enough to convince me. And most of the article is not about that at all, but rather about his political activities, and as minor elected official and a perennial unelected minor party candidate he clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. If kept, the article should be severely cut back to focus only on his academic work. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sufficient career achievement to merit encyclopedic biography, including 12 books and papers with high citation counts and two stint as an elected county counselor, not counting other political campaigns. In essence, a public figure. The article itself needs work. Carrite (talk) 16:43, 27 April 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.