Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael J. Gillis

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. Sr13 06:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael J. Gillis

Michael J. Gillis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Fails WP:PROF. Just another professor, and at an obscure college. His publishing history is actually kind of sparse, if anything - one book, one book with a co-author, one book edited. All by obscure academic publishers. The two written being on obscure subjects. About half of the journals he contributed to, he contributed book reviews (see brief bio here. A doctor or lawyer etc. of his level of accomplishment would not have an article; he's in a field where you have to write stuff, but so? Unless we're going to include about every professor (and we aren't, thus WP:PROF), he doesn't rate an article. Herostratus 06:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 06:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no apparent notability per WP:PROF. --Dhartung | Talk 07:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep seems to meet WP Prof criteria as with (1) significant expert in area regarding westward expansion history for US, haveing a recent published work as co writer and haveing a trusted collegiate position as editor. Such works also speak for criteria (2) - (4). Criteria (6) is addressed through his honor of presidency of ANCRR. (5) might be said to be addressed through the Overland journal article. I see no need to diminish these achievements nor to remove the balanced article.DDB 09:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The WP:PROF bar is set pretty low as is; no need to engage in hard squinting (as above) to try to distinguish notability. This fails the WP:PROF standard and should go. Eusebeus 11:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Relatively few publications, articles (ex-book reviews) not published in high-impact journals, no evidence that I can uncover of wide citations of his books, Association for Northern California Records and Research doesn't seem a sufficiently notable body for its presidents to be automatically notable, and no other awards/honours. Willing to change my mind if anyone uncovers enough of a citation history to meet WP: PROF. Espresso Addict 13:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. 3 books for an entire academic career and articles in several minor reviews don't make you notable as an academic. --Targeman 21:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete The first book of the books was merely editing a collection of essays; the second is held in 97 libraries, but the 3rd in only a few. Contrary to the nom, Bidwell is a significant subject, his diaries are a major source, and there have been at least have been several other books about him. But still, not enough. A diligent local historian, but not an important one. DGG (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Eusebeus.Montco 05:12, 21 July 2007 (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.