Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Ciampa


 * 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. Courcelles 20:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Roy Ciampa

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article was deproded without addressing the concern. It still appears to fail WP:ACADEMIC. I have been unable to find reliable sources to satisfy the notability requirements for an academic. Google scholar search turns up some citations, but not significant enough number to quality for WP:ACADEMIC. The most highly cited piece is "The presence and function of scripture in Galatians 1 and 2" with only 18 cites, followed by "The Structure and Argument of 1 Corinthians: A Biblical/Jewish Approach" with only 4 cites. This does not appear to be sufficient for Academic notability on Wikipedia. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete? Question mark is because I'm not versed on WP:ACADEMIC.   But there is zero indication of wp:notability, has only one reference which is the website of his school.  Appears to have written much.  North8000 (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * delete has plenty of articles, some of them in quite good journals.  concerning the one with 18 cites, not a particularly high number, a bunch of them are in master's theses, which mean nothing for citation counting.  fails wp:academic on all counts, and seems to meet no other notability standard.  &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: No evidence of having met any of the criteria in WP:ACADEMIC.--BlueonGray (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I find GS cites to be 18, 4, 5, 3. to give an h index of 3. Inadequate for WP:Prof, even for a low cited field. Is there anything else? I note that a lot of BLPs on the staff of this institution have recently been written. If this is being done at the behest of some naive institutional manager he should be warned that this can be a recipe for humiliation. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2011 (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.