Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Petracca


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Michael Petracca

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Most of the citations don't mention him at all. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing WP:RS. Fails WP:NBIO. Narky Blert (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with Narky Blert here, Article fails WP:NBIO without any reliable sources and no significant coverage about the subject . Kpg  jhp  jm  15:40, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Kpg  jhp  jm  15:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Kpg  jhp  jm  15:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is not accurate to say that there are zero reliable sources. GScholar indicates that his works have the kind of citations that we use for determining whether an academic meets WP:PROF. His book "Common Culture" has gone through at least seven editions, which is an indicator of lasting popularity (WP:TBK). There is some commentary on it, such as  (p 25 ). Similarly there is a Kirkus review of Doctor Syntax (cumulative index) and another review in American Bookseller  (p 79). I haven't done an exhaustive search yet, but the multiple reviews (or similar commentary) criteria is already met by those. There are also more than eight hundred library holdings of his books:, with "Common Culture" being very widely held. James500 (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Enlighten me. These are the tests defined in WP:NPROF:
 * The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
 * The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
 * The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the IEEE).[2]
 * The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
 * The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).
 * The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
 * The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
 * The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.
 * The person is in a field of literature (e.g., writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.
 * Please specify which of those tests he passes. Because, I cannot see that he passes any of them at all. Feel free to suggest more than one... Narky Blert (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not say he passes PROF. I said he had reliable citations of the kind that we use to assess PROF. I am not sure whether or not he passes PROF, because I am not sure what level of citation is typical for his field. He does however satisfy WP:AUTHOR with multiple periodical reviews etc. James500 (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "I did not say he passes PROF." Yes you did, or your argument was 100% Mustelidae. Narky Blert (talk) 03:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. I can't find reviews of his writing texts, but there's a case to be made for WP:PROF through widespread use of his books Reading Popular Culture and Common Culture as texts at various universities. His novel Doctor Syntax has multiple published reviews, not enough for WP:AUTHOR by itself but contributing to notability nonetheless. And I found an in-depth profile of him in the LA Times, also discussing both novels, which by itself (because only one piece) is not quite enough for WP:GNG but again contributing, and a piece in the Santa Barbara Independent which is too brief and local to count for much but still adds detail to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per David Eppstein: this appears to be a case where multiple not-quite-threshold contributions, which would not make a good case for notability individually, get over the bar together. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: scrapes by on elements of GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Sufficient for a stub, per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2018 (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.