Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Keasey


 * 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 18:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Kevin Keasey

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable for an encyclopedia and somehow comes across as a resume Sheroddy (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 02:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 02:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof . What's wrong with a resume? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC).
 * Weak Keep - This appears to be a borderline case given how the article really needs work and the mentioning by sources isn't that great. Still, he has written two economics-related book while had himself covered as an academic for what he's studied, so I lean more to keeping the article. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to point out that he's notable enough for the Financial Times to have published his perspective. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Having an opinion piece published in a journal doesn't necessarily equal notability. Having a piece written about you in a journal would be more significant. Have any of his books been reviewed/ referenced?Jonpatterns (talk) 10:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: you're all joking, right? A perfunctory journal search has returned more than 2000 citations, thus easily passing WP:PROF. No question here whatsoever as to whether this should be kept. Does nobody perform WP:BEFORE anymore? Regards, FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  16:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nom makes no reasonable substantive arguments for deletion, and the article includes significant indicators of notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - standard searching shows good case that Mr. Keasey meets criteria for WP:PROF. --  1Wiki8 Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR  (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2015 (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.