Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter N. Kirstein


 * 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. Geschichte (talk) 10:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Peter N. Kirstein

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not pass WP:NBIO. Only one reference is independent and the subject is peripheral to that article about another academic (Norman Finkelstein). 1292simon (talk) 06:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  10:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete clearly fails notability guidelines for academics. His activism has not received the level of coverage to justify an article either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. With only one book out, it looks WP:TOOSOON for WP:NAUTHOR.  Citation record is extremely weak for WP:NPROF C1, and there is little sign of other NPROF criteria, nor of GNG. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete clearly promotional. Even had he another book or two, most ofthe contentso fthis article would be removed a promotionalism  DGG ( talk ) 06:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. The situation with this article is actually more complicated than it appears at first glance, as I'll try to explain. Indeed, the suject does not seem to be notable as a historian, and I believe he does not pass WP:PROF. As DGG notes, much of the article reads rather propotional now. There is one fairly well cited paper in GScholar, but that seems to be about it. I could not find any published reviews of his book(s) or other writings. He has some publications on the subject of academic freedom and tenure but they received only a few citations, and his activities in this area do not appear to have received significant coverage, with one exception. The present version of the article contains a weirdly written unsourced section 'E-mail Exchange'. However, an earlier version of the article contains a different, much longer, version of that section, with several sources, including . There was also a WSJ editorial about this controversy . At some point in 2015 an IP editor from near Gary, Indiana User:67.175.104.72 removed all the references from the section and rewrote it into a warped POV slanted version the article contains today. Although the Airforce Academy cadet exchange controversy did receive significant coverage, I think overall the article still merits deletion. The situation, at least for now, looks like a WP:BLP1E/WP:BIO1E case to me, and the only event with significant coverage is a controversy with significant negative BLP aspects. Nsk92 (talk) 10:39, 5 November 2020 (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.