Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satvinder S. Juss


 * 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. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Satvinder S. Juss

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Essentially unsourced biography with no evidence of passing WP:GNG. Per WP:BLP this article cannot remain unless reliable independent sources are added. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete a search for independent reliable sources failed to support notability of the subject.  Flat Out  let's discuss it  05:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - unfortunately not enough sources for verification. Plus apparently contains original research. --TL22 (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - without doubt, the article needs a lot of work and it is desperately short of references, including for some dubious statements. However, he does appear to be notable even though this article does not support it well - a search of Google Books confirms that he is indeed the author of an extensive collection on the topic of migration and human rights law. His works showed up as citations in a large number of other books in the field.  He is indeed a professor at King's College (I provided a reference for that). So I suggest he should be given the benefit of the doubt for now and allowed time to provide references to back up the statements here. I will also notify WP:WikiProject Law in case they can provide references.
 * Comment - I'm not sure his published works meet WP:NAUTHOR but if further sources indicate a pass under WP:GNG I'll happily change my !vote.  Flat Out  let's discuss it 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. I am prepared to accept that being a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts and having book reviews and an h-index of 9 satisfies PROF in this instance (Law is a very low citation field. According to LSE, the average h-index of a (full) law professor is 2.8, so his is more than three times the average). This is a book review. If the list of periodical book reviews here (SCOLAG Legal Journal, European Journal of Communication, King's Law Journal) is accurate, he will satisfy AUTHOR, because he needs two at most, and that is four. James500 (talk) 03:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment about being "a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, and its Council Member": every member of that society is called a "Fellow" - more than 27,000 according to their Web site at https://www.thersa.org/fellowship/, so that is not a particularly notable achievement in itself. Even so, his name does not show up in their Fellow search tool there. As for being a council member, he is not listed on their Web site at https://www.thersa.org/about-us/governance/fellowship-council/.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My mistake. Our article on the RSA appears to say that there have been 27,000 members since the 1750s. I assumed this was correct and that most of those were dead. Looking at their website, however, I think you are right about the present number. He is described as FRSA in this book by Routledge, and a few others: . James500 (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep Juss easily passes WP:ACADEMIC and meets WP:AUTHOR as "widely cited by peers". The article needs a lot of work, particularly the likely copyvio. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 01:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon  03:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The invited talk in NZ is suggestive, but other than that I don't see the evidence of passing WP:PROF. In particular, prolific publishing by itself is not enough — we need also evidence that those publications have had a big impact, and the citation record doesn't really show that. I'm also not impressed with the apparent lack of care with which our article was put together (not just the copyvio but also that the book listing includes an IEEE conference proceedings INTERACT-9 that is completely outside his subject and that nobody with a similar name has any association with), the fact that it appears to be an autobiography, and the fact that we are now seeing significant edits by a single-purpose account with the appearance of trying to hide the autobiographical nature of the edits. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep We have so far regarded RFellow RSA as indicating notability. And there is reason for doing so here also on the basis of his books: WorldCat He is  author of International migration and global justice, found in 1033 worldcat libraries  He was editor of The Ashgate research companion to migration law, theory and policy, apparently a standard reference found in 524 worldcat libraries. Ashgate is not the highest quality of academic publisher, but this still enough to show he is regarded as an authority in the subject. DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 25 April 2015 (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.