Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurence Hutchman


 * 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. Looks like the consensus here is that WP:NPROF is not met. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Laurence Hutchman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

no indication of notability and the article doesn't assert anything that indicates notability per WP:NACADEMIC The same editor has been creating a load of Dial-A-Poem Montreal related articles over a short span of time. See https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Chuang726 Graywalls (talk) 10:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 10:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 10:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Professor at a major university.  scope_creep Talk  12:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * comment .. I think we use WP:NACADEMICS when we evaluate notability for professors. I did a quick check and I'm not seeing any indication. Since having published things is often a tenure requisite, I think this ensures Wikipedia from becoming a catalog for every professor at every major universities. Graywalls (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Full professors at major universities are almost always notable. Almost every professor at every major university will eventually have an article in Wikipedia including this man.   scope_creep Talk  08:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * While full professors at major universities are often notable, it isn't automatic. That's what WP:NPROF is for, and I don't see it here.  WP:NAUTHOR looks much more likely; I'm not familiar enough to judge. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Being a professor anywhere, even at Harvard or Cambridge, does not confer notability by itself. Sources inadequate. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC).
 * Delete. Despite the claim made above, professors even at "major universities" aren't automatically notable, and many are not. Plus, 5,000 students isn't "major". Now, the subject has published a number of volumes of poetry, but that alone doesn't make one notable; nor do I see that the subject passes WP:PROF. Thus, delete. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Sadly, even top poets are often too difficult to source to achieve Wikipedia-notability. They don't tend to have the in-depth coverage such as book reviews that one would expect for other people working in the humanities. In this case, the awards are a good start but they're too local to convince me. And full professor at a good university is suggestive but not by itself sufficient for WP:PROF notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * David Eppstein, this is a problem, yes, but there are dozens of magazines/journals (really, websites...) that review poetry, and I don't find any reviews of his work. There's this, but it's nothing. He's published a load of books, but that press doesn't seem to be that notable either... But this is something we need to work on: guidelines for poet biographies, and some commentary on reliable and notable sources. Drmies (talk) 13:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * and there are many "self publishing" houses specifically meant for the creative types as as the examples in https://www.editage.com/book-editing-services/articles/top-10-self-publishing-companies-a-2018-guide-for-first-time-authors.html having a book published through vanity presses is like saying you have a Wix or a Weebly website, which means "published" as in more than likely satisfying evidence of publication for copyright or "prior art" burden for when the idea came up for patenting purposes, but meaningless for "reliably published" definition for Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, I say mostly since I commented already. NPROF just isn't there, and it doesn't look like the reviews for NAUTHOR are there either.  Comment that Articles for deletion/Richard Lemm is an especially similar case. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete does not meet any of the inclusion guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per John Pack Lambert. 2001:569:7C07:2600:3872:173E:11E1:2108 (talk) 04:58, 1 December 2019 (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.