Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James F. Allen


 * 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The result was   Keep, nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

James F. Allen
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Nomination withdrawn Sources are not always apparent and I saw little evidence this was notable but this has now been proved to meet requirements.

Non notable BLP. No hits in google books. Few other if any at all from his website that I can find.♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes multiple counts of WP:PROF with a named chair at a research university, elected fellowship of an academic society, journal editorship and papers with citation counts (according to Google Scholar) of 5659, 2262, 489, 396, 337 etc. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —Phil Bridger (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Easily passes multiple criteria of WP:PROF. Only one criterion is needed for a keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Articles also need to pass Biographies of living persons and Verifiability and have multiple reliable publications discussing this individual aside from papers they may have published. It is still an unsourced BLP.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I added some sources to the article. It was not difficult. Did you even try? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I do a google book search generally which didn't reveal a single source. Maybe I should try google scholar for academics in future.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a single source? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, barely any credible fruckin hits actually about James F. Allen. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it's difficult with that search to find sources about Allen, because they're obscured by all the publications that are by him rather than about him. In cases like this it works better to include in the query some of the other specifics from the article that one is trying to source (and also of course to look for scholar, web, and news sources rather than assuming that everything can be found in books). But the nominator's "no hits in Google books" opening statement remains mystifying, because the problem here isn't no hits, it's too many hits. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep for reasons above. Incompetent nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2011 (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.