Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul R. Blakemore


 * 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. ansh 666 02:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Paul R. Blakemore

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC. Run-of-the-mill minor academic, only a US associate professor. Created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. GS shows a couple of highly-cited papers, but not enough to pass WP:PROF, I think, and there's no indication the subject passes the other criteria. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 03:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete It is an inherent violation of GNG to source an article only to an individuals employer bio. All the more so because employer bios usually do not involve indepdent verification. Maybe if we had a bio in the university magazine or newspaper, I would consider it at least somewhat indepdent, but university online bios are not really at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Violation? GNG does not prohibit anything, so not passing GNG does not violate anything. And you're misreading GNG; it is only about the existence of references, not their use in an article. That criterion is in any case irrelevant to this one (as irrelevant as WP:NSPORTS or WP:NPOL etc): we have a different criterion, WP:PROF, that we should be evaluating. If you're not willing to play that game, you should stop leaving these off-topic arguments on academic deletion discussions or lobby to change the academic notability criterion, not keep using the wrong one. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The citation record is borderline — as Joe already said, a couple of well cited papers but not much below them. I would be more inclined to support notability on the basis of WP:PROF if there were something of interest to say about the subject. But as it is, we have no in-depth sources on Blakemore (published by his employer or anyone else, but reliable and not merely self-published) to use as the basis of an article. There's not much content in the article as it is now, but what's there is too badly sourced to keep. And with no sourceable content, there's no basis for keeping an article, even if he does barely pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:31, 5 November 2017 (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.