Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Durrant


 * 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

John Durrant

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unreferenced BLP. prodded it but failed to notify, the creator, and he had it restored. I tried to BLP PROD it, at which point left a note on my talk page saying "Technicallly, the page could be deleted already as I proposed deletion earlier this month and it was left uncontested for longer than 7 days. Then the banner was taken down. Does that mean the new nomination must stay in place for 7 days again?" and I left a note on ' talk page; upon submitting, I found that had left him a note and he had restored it. Laun chba  ller  12:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * For the record, I had no intention on violating any requirement or not observing it by failing to notify the creator. It was a lapse and I have apologised to the creator for it. Regards, Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * All's good, thanks for explaining. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Lack of available sources suggests that he is not notability. There is no evidence that the subject meets WP:NACADEMICS.- MrX 13:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not notable. Countless academics review articles for publications and serve on professional bodies; it is par for the course. Edit history reveals almost non-existing interest in subject. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep GS h-index of 20 in the field of audiology (there seems to be more than one "J D Durrant") passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC).
 * I'm curious about how you arrived at that h-index number. Also, his last name is Durrant, not Durant (I assume that was a typo).- MrX 01:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, a typo. There is material about citation counting at h-index and WP:Prof. I do the counting on my fingers. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC).


 * Delete due to apparent failure to meet WP:PROFESSOR/WP:ACADEMIC, in addition to lack of sources which might enable meeting WP:GNG. This is despite my very great concern at the incoherent and irrelevant arguments advanced by some of the other people !voting delete - which I would like to be noted by the closing admin. Only arguments based on policy and guidelines should be taken into account when closing an AfD. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete : I am sure that there are millions of professors who are not notable enough, including this one.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * How did you arrive at the figure of millions? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC).
 * Can be confirmed from yellowpages.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Abstain as the creator, but I'll ping User:Randykitty - a penny for your thoughts? Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. How WP:GNG doesn't fail? This article should be deleted  AHLM13  talk 11:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak delete He has a weak claim of notability under WP:PROFESSOR; his articles received a moderate number of citations (two got over 100) and he seems to have been a bit of an authority on vestibular dysfunction. But he never rose above the titles of "professor" and vice-chair of a department, and now (according to his faculty page at Pitt) he is emeritus. All in all I think he fails WP:PROF and is a run-of-the-mill academic. --MelanieN (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW the page is not eligible for BLP prod since it contains a link to his faculty page at Pitt. It isn't cited as a reference but I believe it still counts. "To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.), which support any statements made about the person in the biography." --MelanieN (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2014 (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.