Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Veissière


 * 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   draftified by. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Samuel Veissière

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PROD removed even though I informed the author user of this not satisfying WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF and they acknowledged it, even when I said this man's career was simply too soon, so I'm not sure why this was removed; likewise, there's still nothing suggesting better as there's nothing significant and WorldCat or GoogleScholar. SwisterTwister  talk  00:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Concern was expressed in lack of the subject’s coverage on WorldCat and GoogleScholar. Contrary evidence was found in reference to a variety of libraries holding the relevant author’s book and multiple references in GoogleScholar. See references below.
 * https://www.worldcat.org/title/ghosts-of-empire-violence-suffering-and-mobility-in-the-transatlantic-cultural-economy-of-desire/oclc/751724317&referer=brief_results
 * https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?cites=7186797955184696673&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en
 * The subject appears to have relevant media coverage regarding his expertise in Tulpamancy as a featured scholar. See link of popular media and press below (third link was present before request for deletion).
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3j5gtUCkJg
 * https://theawl.com/all-my-friends-are-in-my-head-d307d99f366d#.waii68knm
 * http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/tulpamancy-internet-subculture-892
 * Insufficient secondary sources were provided on the subject’s expertise regarding Tulpamancy. Two sources have been added as references.
 * Section titled “cultural affordances” has been deleted due to insufficient references. Krista Liberio (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * DeleteComment - The subject has obviously written, but that is what professors do. What shows that the subject himself is notable?  Has the subject received positive or negative coverage?  I am not seeing that, but I would like to give others and opportunity to comment.--Rpclod (talk) 13:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not having seen any further comment, I change my recommendation to delete.--Rpclod (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  17:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. 90 GS citations far below number needed in high cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2016 (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.