Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoffrey Vaughan


 * 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Geoffrey Vaughan
Seemingly non-notable professor who fails WP:PROF. Gives no assertion of notability, and his published works aren't too prevalent in a simple Google test. fuzzy510 03:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 04:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Undecided He's not notable in terms of research as judged by professional researcher scholars, having published one good book and a few articles. ,This is more than most professors at community colleges do., however, and it is possible he should be judged by that. I'm not at all sure--just suggesting the idea. DGG 07:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, no independent sources attesting to notability in his field. --Dhartung | Talk 07:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, there is more than one Academic with this name. John Vandenberg 08:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I think that this is a matter for more research rather than deletion. It's mentioned above that he is a comm. college teacher, but it seems that where he teaches is more than that and offers post graduate degrees.  I see a book and a review of the book.   It seems that deletion is premature.  --Kevin Murray 16:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep He is associate professor (hence tenured) at a branch campus of a state university, not a community college. He has a book and several good publications. A solid beginning to a career, and higher in the pecking order than many college teachers. To be an easy keep I would expect more publications, more awards, more citations of his work, etc. Edison 16:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As he is indeed a professor at a state college--my mistake--I point out that the publication record is rather weak for that. From WebofScience, neither of his two articles has been cited by the journals included there, but they are not complete for social science. The book apparently gives many GS hits, but it turns out they are all artifacts due to inclusion of the book in the single book review listed, which also listed 30 other recent books. Also cited in 1 PhD thesis. Two miscellaneous items listed at the bottom of the article I have been unable to verify. DGG 23:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Editors should realize that a sentence such as "Vaughan has gained respect from all corridors of the UMBC campus" does not a claim for notability make.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 04:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Typical-looking professorial career at a midrank school; nothing stands out. I didn't see anything standing out in his publications on Hobbes, either. —David Eppstein 19:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of notability. Indrian 09:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * delete does not meet WP:PROF. JoshuaZ 17:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Agreed with all of the deletion rationale above.-- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 21:15, 14 June 2007 (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.