Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronald H. Chilcote


 * 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The result was withdrawn. Withdrawing this AfD. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Ronald H. Chilcote

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This BLP does not have any secondary reliable sources independent from the subject himself; its citations are entirely limited to a journal of which he has served as managing editor since its founding. There's a lot of information on this page that is entirely unverifiable, and I believe it would be best to delete the page in light of the lack of coverage of this individual. The page feels as if it was written by someone who knows the subject personally, and I believe that this should be deleted per WP:TNT. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Keep. As pointed out in the article, "Chilcote is the author of over 200 academic publications, including books, book chapters, and peer-reviewed journal articles, with emphasis on comparative politics, political economy, and development economics." A distinguished 86-year-old scholar who has authored over 30 books in a 60-year career, he is eminently qualified for a Wikipedia entry. In addition to the nine inline cites, there is the "University of California, Irvine Guide to the Ronald H. Chilcote papers". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The nine inline cites come entirely from a journal that he edited, while the the guide is published by his employer. Neither of these are independent sources, and one's employer collecting one's papers doesn't seem to be remarkable whatsoever, especially when Chicotle himself donated them to create the "collection". — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The guide is not published by his employer. He was employed by UC Riverside; the guide is published by UC Irvine, a different university. From description of the contents in the guide, it appears to be unrelated to his university work. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as unprodder. As I wrote in my unprod, "Abu-El-Haj is enough of a reliable source to save this from BLPPROD, and the named professorship appears to pass WP:PROF". The nominator appears to have completely ignored this rationale and failed to even address WP:PROF-based notability, which is not based on the "secondary reliable sources independent from the subject himself" requested in the nomination. On top of which, even the most cursory search of JSTOR for book reviews of his books finds many (starting with, , , , , , , , , , , , etc) so there are many many in-depth published sources about his work and an easy pass of a second notability guideline, WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Some decent citations on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC).
 * Obvious Keep. He holds a named chair in a reputable university (WP:PROF) and he's managing editor of a journal (WP:PROF) before we even start on his output of books and papers. It is a common misunderstanding that these don't count towards a person's notability. If academic papers are widely cited, or if books sell very well and are widely read, then they do contribute (because article citations, and book sales, are an indication independent of the author, and both indicate that the author has wide influence). The article is in desperate need of proper referencing, but there is no reason to believe that the subject is not notable, and referencing can be improved. Elemimele (talk) 11:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Per the unprod rationale and the passing of WP:AUTHOR. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)