Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigel Knight


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Cindy  ( talk ) 23:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Nigel Knight

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page is likely to have been written by Nigel Knight himself: the user who created it is Nvk21, which are indeed the initials of his name and his university email user ID. Jacopo.luppino (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Needs a rewrite, but I found reviews of 2 of his books in scholarly journals (one by the very distinguished scholar Vernon Bogdanor) - I added a section to the article - and his critical book on Churchill attracted some media interest. Meets WP:WRITER. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep -- The question is really how significant his two books are. I know that autobiography is deplored in WP, but he has succeeded in being reasonably objective.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Writing an autobio is discouraged, because it is very difficult to be neutral about oneself. However, it is not forbidden and it most certainly is not a reason for deletion. Perhaps the nom would care to provide a valid argument for deletion, if not, the proposal should be withdrawn. --Randykitty (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep -- reviews of his books + position establish notability under WP:PROF and probably WP:WRITER also. What Randykitty said holds. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. A click on the Scholar button will show the issue. His work is absolutely trivial in impact. His books have 4 and 2 citations respectively, essentially two trees that dropped in the forest while noone was around. Fails other WP:ACADEMIC as well as general criteria too. Pared down to achievements, there is nothing noteworthy.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Colapeninsula and Mscurthbert; unambiguously meets WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR (4c). If it weren't for the above !vote I'd recommend speedy closure per point #1 of WP:SK, since the nomination statement is not an argument for deletion. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Obviously part of the debate, for better or worse, and sufficient refs. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 22:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Tiny cites on GS. No hope of passing WP:Prof. What else is there? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC).
 * What about reviews of books in journals? Or is there a WP guideline I don't know about that says that only Google Scholar online open-source citations count? -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, they do count. It is puzzling though, that a professional academic has so little presence in the citation databases. Ray's comments below seem pertinent. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC).


 * Weak keep Fails WP:PROF and is highly dubious on WP:AUTHOR - a few critical (and unkind) reviews do not represent "significant critical attention." That said, he seems to be good at picking a topic that will garner media coverage, so passes WP:GNG just barely. Personally, I think Wikipedia could leave or take this article. Ray  Talk 04:13, 8 June 2013 (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.