Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rod A. Martin


 * 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 per unanimous consensus. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 16:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Rod A. Martin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

BLP unsourced except to his employer's website since 2009 Orange Mike  &#124;  Talk  20:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Lack of aggregated citations doesn't mean it fails N. Scholar is bringing back returns in thousands. He has also written more than the one book mentioned in the stub. Edit: plenty of news articles, His book appears to be a major deal in the field, etc etc. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 21:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. When Anthony Gottlieb in NYT calls Martin's book the quote "compendious college textbook on the topic" and Nick Tasler in Harvard Business Review describes him as the "pioneering humor researcher", it should give reason to further STFW. As L3X1 correctly points out, a Google Scholar shows 8000+ citations, and with an h-index of 40 and countless of quotes in Google Books search results, a few of which I have added as citations, I think subject meets WP:NACADEMIC #1. How the article was sourced at the time of AFD tagging is not a policy based argument for deletion, as notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. — Sam Sailor 02:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as per my nomination. CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   09:58, 18 February 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.