Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Cumming


 * 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 keep. The subject is notable, deletion is WP:NOTCLEANUP, and there is no consensus that the article is so hopelessly irreparable that WP:TNT is warranted Salvio giuliano 08:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Douglas Cumming

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

WP:PROMOTIONAL BLP by a paid editor. Also largely self-sourced, therefore I suggest that WP:TNT is justified here.

The subject likely meets WP:NBIO, therefore draftification might be a suitable alternative to deletion? MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 11:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable as holder of a named professorship and as a widely-cited academic. Not unduly promotional. See the Google Scholar page at https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=rH8ShgoAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and Florida. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Take the axe to it: Notable via WP:NPROF as a distinguished prof and on citations. It's not overtly promotional in the sense that it doesn't say his research is "groundbreaking" or words like that, but there is a significant degree of over-coverage, particularly with regards to the lede, which needs to be significantly cut. Curbon7 (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if I understand your !vote correctly, are you in favor of keeping or deleting? It seems clear that you are, like me, in favor of cutting down the content substantially, which implies keeping an article on the subject? --hroest 03:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * yes. Curbon7 (talk) 03:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable per WP:NPROF#1 with 24k citations and an h-index of 79 as well as #5 but there is no need for an extended CV with a list of all books and individual PhD students here; clearly the article needs to be cut down and written in an encyclopedic style. --hroest 16:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, passes WP:NPROF with flying colors. Nominator cannot be familiar with WP:NPROF. Article is not great, and overly promotional, but that is not an AfD issue. Jeppiz (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello . Notability is not the basis for this AFD, please see the nomination statement. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, notability is the basis for every AfD. I did not mean to comment, but as you insist, I feel obliged to recommend you to study WP policies before starting future AfDs. If a subject is notable but the article poor, as is the case here, the correct action is to improve the article, not to nominate it for AfD. Jeppiz (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep No deletion argument was put forward by the nominator regarding the article subject's notability. Silver  seren C 03:34, 30 March 2023 (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.