Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Gallagher (anthropologist)


 * 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. Euryalus (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Michael Gallagher (anthropologist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails the GNG – no significant coverage in independent sources. There isn't really a claim to notability made in the article, it just seems to be the case of an anthropologist doing his job. Note: this was originally a PROD, but the article's creator objected. Based on that objection, it would be preferable if the AfD is not closed until the article's creator has had their say.  IgnorantArmies  (talk)  07:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. The only thing that looks like a claim of notability here is co-authorship of a book Noonkanbah, whose land, whose law, but I didn't find the multiple independent reviews needed for WP:AUTHOR and in any case by itself that would still be a case of WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. As nominator noted, no real claim to notability here - it's just a kind of abbreviated resume without anything to hang on as to why it should be in an encyclopedia. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as a non-notable academic. At least, no claim to notability on the page, and my searches couldn't source notability, although he is real; sources for his work exist, just nothing that I saw supports notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as there's still nothing at all for any actual convincing independent notability. SwisterTwister   talk  07:31, 9 July 2016 (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.