Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil Parpworth


 * 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   deleted per WP:BLPPROD. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Neil Parpworth

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Going by the creator's name, there is a WP:COI... The problem as always is notability.

GScholar claims 52 cites for the book (Constitutional & Administrative Law) - this being said, 2016 is the 9th edition of the book, so one would assume it sells reasonably well. All in all, I still think it is too little for WP:PROF. Tigraan Click here to contact me 16:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per WP:BLPPROD and complete failure of WP:GNG. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Modified to Speedy per WP:A7, WP:A11, and WP:G11, and I've tagged as such. - SanAnMan (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , CSD are supposed to be applied restrictively. A11 is plain wrong since the guy and his book exist, G11 is not even close (no fundamental rewrite needed to be encyclopedic) and A7 is (at best) a gray area. Tigraan Click here to contact me 07:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Note I have declined speedy deletion per User:Tigraan comments above. No prejudice to deletion through AFD or BLPPROD. Jujutacular (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. A GS h-index of 4 is totally insufficient to pass WP:Prof. No case for WP:GNG either. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC).
 * Delete as still nothing at all convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  02:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. A h index is a useless measure for textbooks-- or indeed, for any book at all.   He qualifies for WP:PROF for being the editor of a standard textbook.  DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Just for clarification: are you referring to WP:NACADEMIC #4? Because then we would need a source saying the textbook is "standard", i.e. "has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions." I did not find such a source, even if - as my nom states - there is circumstancial evidence that the book is somewhat known.
 * I agree the citation metrics of an educational book are not a good measure of its educational value, but none of their other scholarly work comes even close, and the h-index does give some measure of the person's reputation among researchers; I do not see a claim based on research activities here. Tigraan Click here to contact me 16:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  14:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: wholly non-notable subject. Quis separabit?  19:59, 5 August 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.