Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kieran Healy


 * 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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger One ping only 01:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Kieran Healy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No assertion of notability, and none independently found. (Note that there are other people with the same name who get hits on Google and Bing.) This subject is a blogger who is a member of a group blog. The group blog may be notable and has passed AfD in the past, but there is no significant third-party coverage in WP:RS of the subject as an individual. The page was created and largely maintained by another member of the same group blog and does not have an extensive edit history. Snouter (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 01:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 01:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 01:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 *  Comment Weak keep. Subject is more than a blogger, is a research academic. Some significant cites on GS, not sure which are his. Redlink nom has 8 edits. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC).
 * Keep. Professor Healy is a notable academic: one of the top researchers on morality and economic exchange. The article could be improved, but it should not be deleted.  After the shooting at Sandy Hook, Dr Healy was the source of widely cited analysis on gun violence world wide. mtpearce (talk) 04:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep GS cites are 178, 165, 121, 115, 74, 52, 35 ... for a GS h-index of 12. The leading cites are all the same Healy. Ray  Talk 21:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The comment I was going to make on GS cites has already been made. In addition, the work with 178 cites is a book about social aspects of organ donation whose review in the New York Times is already linked to from the article. The subject also gets a number of GNews hits from reliable sources, although these can be somewhat tricky to sort out from those for other people of the same name. A number of these are as an expert on organ donation, but there are also a significant number on other topics, inside and outside sociology - in part presumably because of his public profile as one of the more regular bloggers at Crooked Timber, but apparently for his personal expertise (or occasionally his ability to turn a good phrase) and not as a spokesperson for Crooked Timber or his employers. Finally, the remark in the nomination about the page being "largely maintained" by one of his fellow Crooked Timber contributors is misleading. The person concerned certainly created the article, but the only subsequent edits by him seem to have been to contest speedy deletion two days after article creation back in 2006, adding categories the following day, and apparently reverting vandalism on about one occasion in 2007. Most of the current article is apparently by other editors. PWilkinson (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm convinced enough by the case for academic notability through heavy citations made above, but I think he also passes notability as an author for his book Last Best Gifts (reviewed in NYT and multiple other reliable sources) and even as a blogger (two stories in the Irish Times cover his blogging activities in some depth). —David Eppstein (talk) 08:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable as author and academic as sourced above, and there really aren't other people with the same name showing up, so the initial proposal is quite flawed/misinformed. —Lumin (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have no additional information to add to the points made by others here, but fully support the points that Healy meets criteria for both academic and broader notability as an author and blogger. The AfD proposal here provides only flawed support for its claims and all appear to have been rebutted. Aaronshaw (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2013 (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.