Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piers Robinson


 * 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) buidhe 06:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Piers Robinson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There are three kinds of sources in the article, a lot of primary sources (which cannot be used to establish notability, one brief mention in a third party book (which may fail as a trivial mention) and a fair bit of media coverage that is being objected to as not reliable for information about the subject. If this is true, and these are not RS we have just one single paragraph in one book, which is not enough to establish notability. Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NPROF C1, based on several highly-cited papers. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Never been sure if the number of cites demonstrates that, after all they could be circular, or "and this bloke is an idiot, and here why".Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If 3000 authors take the time to explain why he's an idiot, then that would be pretty notable! I don't notice any red flags in his citation record. I do note that he has been criticized as engaging in conspiracy theories,, but I see that's already topic of hot discussion on the article talk page. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but its does not mean they have have "had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline". Ohh and by the way, those are the sources being called not RS. Either these establish notability, or they do not.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To be completely clear, this citation record in my opinion does strongly suggest a significant impact on the scholarly discipline. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. As well as the clear case for WP:PROF, he also passes WP:AUTHOR for multiple reviews of multiple books. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, passes notability guidelines despite the scarcity of reliable secondary sources (understandable whenever media focus on someone's views rather than personal history). — kashmīrī  TALK  17:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per all above. Maybe AfD is WP:SNOW, but probably too early to call. Ed6767 (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep who decides/ on the Afd? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesMcAteer (talk • contribs) 15:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We do by consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In a little more detail: an uninvolved admin will come along after 7 days, evaluate the arguments made here, and close the discussion. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep clearly notable per above Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Reminder that AfD is not a vote. Saying "keep" or "delete" without giving a reason grounded in Wikipedia policies and guidelines is not helpful.  See Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per U|Russ Woodroofe. But seriously he appears to meet notability for professors point 1 with the amount of citations he has received also notable as an author with cited by peers. PackMecEng (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with Slatersteven, in that much of what is being relied upon is currently being objected to as not being reliable. See comments by me in more detail on Talk Page. Research17 (talk) 00:56, 1 June 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.