Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Deudney

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 18:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Deudney

Daniel Deudney (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

NN professor per WP:PROF and WP:BIO generally. Although he seems to have won internal teaching awards from his university, I really don't think that kind of thing can make a prof notable. The guy sounds like a great teacher, but that's not a reason to have an article on him in an encyclopedia -- even one that isn't paper. Has published a couple of books, but (1) nothing much is said about it in the article, and (2) that doesn't make his publication record especially much one way or the other. Mangojuicetalk 04:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete mainly seen in college publications. Obviously a smart cookie, but not important enough to be included here, IMHO! Missvain 05:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep A "Daniel Deudney" search on Google Scholar indicates that he's a widely cited in scholarly publications. On Google he gets 11700 hits. John Hopkins University is a top-tier powerhouse in International Relations and being Associate Professor there is notable "per se". Stammer 10:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:PROF. Leibniz 15:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Although only Associate Prof, so NOT "notable per se," he has 407 hits on Google scholar. Seems notable in his field. Edison 23:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Google scholar results. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I just want to point out that most of the Google Scholar hits are citations, many of them in books. His single most cited work has 68 citations (1st hit), and that's a paper written 16 years ago. I don't see this as an especially long publication record, nor an especially strong one. Mangojuicetalk 04:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I think he meets several prongs of the proposed WP:PROF (significant expert or important figure in his field), and he has been a subject in multiple independant non-trivial works. For example, his work is analyzed here, here, and here. One of his books is used as textbooks by an accredited school[1], and he has been part of the lecture circuit at major universities [2][3][4]. -Kubigula (ave) 05:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Per google results
  • Weak delete: I do not feel that articles on individual living people are appropriate unless either they are very notable, or they consent to their own inclusion. 38.100.34.2 01:30, 25 November 2006 (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.