Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriel J. Chin


 * 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 per WP:SNOW(non-admin closure) per consensus and a wealth of RS. -Icĕwedg Ё  (ťalķ) 04:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Gabriel J. Chin

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

This article does not meet WP:PROF notability criteria, afd stems from contested prod that has not shown improvement. Finalnight (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep About 150+ google book hits, 356 google news hits, recent NYT article on his theory about McCain; pretty notable; think I'd heard of him already.John Z (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the above google searches have a lot of false positives since the name was not put in quotation marks. A GoogleNews search for "Gabriel J. Chin" arizona give 12 hits and a GoogleNews search for "Gabriel Chin" arizona gives 9 hits. A googbooks search for "Gabriel J. Chin" gives 104 hits  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsk92 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 15 July, 2008 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, as usual, quotes eliminate a lot of good ones. You're right that the 356 is exaggerated - but "Jack Chin" arizona gives 48 google news hits - all good as far as I checked. Interestingly, none of them with McCain in them, he seems to have abandoned the nickname. True number is probably ca. 70.  I got 150 gbooks by adding results from some likely variants.  I meant above that I'd heard of the guy before the McCain argument coverage; as the above shows, he was frequently quoted as an expert before the recent upsurge.John Z (talk) 23:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The guy may be spouting an unusually dubious idea, but it's gotten lots of coverage, so he's notable under general guidelines. Interestingly, WP:PROF doesn't include an exception for single-event people, like WP:ONEEVENT does. And he has indeed published an academic work that has attracted attention Ray Yang (talk) 22:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolute Keep - This nomination is borderline bad faith and abuse of the process.Awotter (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't go that far. Were it not for his novel legal argument regarding the current election, he'd almost certainly fail. Given the conflicting guidelines regarding one-hit wonders between WP:ONEEVENT and WP:PROF, I'd say it was a legitimate nomination. That said, I do think it's an easy keep. People researching his position are going to wonder who the guy is, and his paper has certainly caused that stir. RayAYang (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Amusing to see someone who is assuming bad faith accusing someone else of assuming bad faith. Its quite simple, I saw an article that did not have any reliable sources or claims to notability and nominated it. I didn't even notice what the subject of the article is talking about, I just look at the structure of the article and apply the community guidelines to it. I am not sure how I was "abusing the process".--Finalnight (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The newscoverage of him is fairly substantial and it is not limited to the McCain episode. There are also news-stories from 2002-2004 (see the GoogleNews results above). GoogleBooks results are also substantial - 104 hits. Also, he holds a named chair appointment at the University of Arizona (Chester H. Smith Professor of Law). Having a named chair appointment at a major university is a very reliable indicator of academic notability. Passes WP:ACADEMIC. Nsk92 (talk) 03:41, 16 July 2008 (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.