Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Lucaites


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

John Lucaites

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Doesn't meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete: The only citations are primary sources from universities. An article solely or mostly using primary sources does not meet WP:GNG. Capsulecap (talk • contribs) 20:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. His books have won several awards, and Google Scholar shows that they are often cited. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, he held a titled professorship, Provost Professor of English, which is normally enough by itself to show notability. See https://honorsandawards.iu.edu/awards/honoree/7995.html Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. As well as the reasons advanced above, which show notability by WP:PROF, WP:PROF and WP:PROF (none of which requires the in-depth independent sourcing of WP:GNG) his books have many published reviews (now added to the article), giving him an easy pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep The "Provost Professor" title doesn't appear to be quite as high a ranking in their system as "Distinguished Professor" or a named chair, but it's not to be sneezed at, either. The cases for passing WP:PROF, WP:PROF, and WP:AUTHOR also look solid. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. PROF-C1 based on citation record and NAUTHOR.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 09:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: As mentioned previously, the only citations are primary sources from universities. The Google Scholar citations are showing average numbers. Either significant contributions are made to demonstrate how their work has contributed to society or it be deleted. ElderZamzam (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is blatantly false. Even if one looks only at the article at the time you made this comment rather than properly performing WP:BEFORE, the Iowa source is from a university but not his employer (not primary), there are two award citations from non-university organizations, and 36 reliable published secondary sources about his books. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty of reviews for WP:NAUTHOR, plenty of citations in what I believe to be a moderate citation field for WP:NPROF C1. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. per WP:NPROF#1, he passes with many highly cited works: 8 works with 100+ citations for a low citation field. --hroest 18:16, 12 August 2021 (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.