Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Worley


 * 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The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Liliana UwU  (talk / contribs) 02:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Matthew Worley

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)
 * BLP doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO - lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Music, Politics,  and England. AllyD (talk) 09:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: As a fellow of the Royal Historical Society, he appears to pass WP:NPROF. Additionally, a cursory search revealed reviews of some of his works: . Curbon7 (talk) 09:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd keep him; disclosure, I'm currently in the middle of a massive bust-up with the academic community about the laxness of sourcing in articles about academics, but his article is a lot better than many. More informative and better sourced. Enough to satisfy WP:NPROF, and to be useful to the reader. Elemimele (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:AUTHOR and the many published book reviews listed in the article. I think the standards for FRHS are too lax for it to count for WP:PROF. #C8 (founding a notable journal) also looks possible, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2022 (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.