Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Paradise

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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 06:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Paradise

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

References made up of staff directories and single blog article. Nothing to show that it meets basic requirements. Created by disclosed paid editor. RelaxedTim (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is a university professor ("university" and "distinguished" being academic equivalents)— this means the subject meets the requirements of WP:ACADEMIC, and therefore likely warrants an article. Some of the article's content is connected to directory information because that information is not self-serving, is not contested, etc., and is therefore acceptable as a source of information per WP:BLP. If you wish to argue that he is not notable, can you please provide links to policy pages explaining why? (Also: can you please provide a link to a policy page stating that articles created by disclosed paid editors should be deleted? Thanks!) KDS4444 ^(talk) 14:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simply being a Univesity professor does NOT mean the subject is notable. Please read WP:ACADEMIC. RelaxedTim (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 5, WP:ACADEMIC: "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research". What am I missing? KDS4444 ^(talk) 01:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep its a PROF pass and it isn't unduly promotional. Being a University Professor is different than being a professor at a university. The former is an academic rank equivalent to a distinguished chair, making this a clear PROF pass. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per PROF, particularly "[t]he person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline". SarahSV ^(talk) 01:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep clear keep per PROF. Jytdog (talk) 02:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- as "University Professor" under WP:PROF. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just need to be kept balanced as issues of paid editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He was involved in this controversy and resigned as the director of the King Fahd Center, which should probably be included.[1] There are multiple articles in that paper detailing this issue, but most of the articles are paywalled. Fraenir (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.