Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Gill (economist)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 23:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

David Gill (economist)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Possible autobiography, the article is a resume without with only one independent third-party source. I can't find anything in Google News that isn't the other David Gill, and Google Books is similarly unavailing. The Southampton IP address has repeatedly removed the notability tag that dated from Sep 2007 without adding any while adding only one significant independent source s, while not hesitating to include non-notable trivia, so the intelligent Bayesian in me tells me this does not meet the standards of WP:ACADEMIC. THF (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC), updated 19:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   -- Ray (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A significant article about an academic's work in THE is sufficient for notability & appropriate for Wikipedia coverage. Probably we should make a systematic practice of providing articles for  people the subject of major stories  if they aren't here alreadyDGG (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't a second source required? Are we really to be cataloguing every academic profiled by THE?  THF (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In a word, Yes. whether a second source is needed depends upon the distinction conferred by the first. Just like we accept an obit in the Times as sufficient. DGG (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Pass neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO. Actually not even close to meeting either. My own search yielded results essentially identical to THF’s search. This is a junior academic who has not done anything yet to justify inclusion, but who may become notable in the future.--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The article in THE is enough to demonstrate notability, but this article shouldn't be kept from becoming a resume. Themfromspace (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  16:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - does not pass WP:N which requires significant coverage, and a single short article about a single research paper of this economist is not significant coverage. The article is not even about David Gill himself, but about a research paper that apparently ended up in only a mid-level Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, not exactly signalling that this paper has had any big impact on the profession. And as said about, this academic completely fails WP:PROF. Afroghost (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2009 (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.