Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Nusan Porter


 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Jack Nusan Porter

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indications of how this person meets WP:NACADEMIC. While that notability policy includes ...has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level as a criteria, but I'm not convinced that an award from the American Sociological Association qualifies as such. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Two awards, not one. And given that most of Porter's work is within the discipline of sociology, and that he works within US academia, who else would you expect to be making prestigious national awards, other than the American Sociological Association? 86.141.208.224 (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with OP. François Robere (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Many published reviews of his books on JSTOR (which I am working on collating and adding to the article) give him an easy pass of WP:AUTHOR and as founding editor of the Journal of the History of Sociology  he very likely passes WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR at the very least. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 03:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Nominator's note - I'm fine with ending this early as SNOWKEEP (or "nomination withdrawn", if that's more appropriate, as the keep arguments have convinced me that there is sufficient evidence of notability here). OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It can't be withdrawn in its current state unless François Robere also changes his opinion, but snow is still possible. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it kosher to reach out to to see what he thinks about this? Omanlured (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not, as long as the notification is neutral, on the lines of "would you like to take another look now" rather than "please change your opinion". Phil Bridger (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely convinced. I've had hard AfDs on scholars that have a much higher citation count, but the journal work probably qualifies, as David notes. François Robere (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough, thanks for taking the circle back on this. I think this will probably end up being closed as 'keep' anyway due to the factors that you and David Eppstein noted. Omanlured (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF as demonstrated above by David Eppstein. TJMSmith (talk) 15:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep the awards confer notability.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:18, 17 November 2019 (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.