Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert P. Chappell


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Robert P. Chappell

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No clear notability. One book, in 174 libraries, which is low for a book on the subject. All the references to it are local, and therefore not discriminating.

There is nothing else that might imply importance.  DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep My understanding (based on seeing this in a Reuters article and accompanying Reuters video interview, in addition to other, if local, sources) is that child identity theft is a recent phenomenon but is on the increase. Chappell may well be one of the very few national experts in the field -- but the field itself is newly developing, so it's hard to get a handle on independent sources to support this.  That may be the reason for the low numbers to date re: volumes in libraries, but the book has only been out for several months, less than half a year.  There are, in fact, very few references of any kind on this subject apart from his book (which, apparently, is one reason he wrote it).  That doesn't mean it isn't a significant development, however, or that his expertise in this area is insignificant, either.  Law enforcement statistics in the citations included say otherwise.Mrtraska (talk) 00:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If it's the only book on a recent phenomenon that ought to be noticed, but neither the phenomenon or the book has yet gotten much attention, I think it amounts to "not yet notable". No prejudice against resubmission when his work becomes notable, but until it does, this is promotion.  DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. I can't find any coverage that indicates notability, and the article itself is stuffed full of minor awards and career details, but also has nothing that indicates notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Even the headlines of some of the references take pains to specify that the subject's relevance is only local, so until the subject reaches a wider notoriety, it seems to me that he is less than notable. j notabene (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete While having a few law enforcement and military awards is commendable, it's not enough to meet our notability criteria. As has already been mentioned, the book doesn't address the notability issue either. OhNo itsJamie Talk 06:16, 14 July 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.