Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Lewis Allen

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. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Lewis Allen[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable author/ academic and businessman. Only three ([1]) mentions in news outlets (and only passing mentions of him at that), a h-index of 1 (cited 51 times) ([2]), and minor mentions in the broader scholarship ([3]). There is insufficient coverage in independent, reliable sources to pass any of our notability guidelines, including WP:AUTHOR, WP:NACADEMIC, and most importantly, WP:BASIC. ——Serial^# 15:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ——Serial^# 15:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ——Serial^# 15:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ——Serial^# 15:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't know about you, but I think being mentioned by NYU, being mentioned by the University of Chicago, and being mentioned by Spartacus Educational makes you notable, doesn't it?

No, Koridas, unfortunately passing mentions are insufficient to establish that topic's notability. Sorry about that! ——Serial^# 22:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to a stub about the Wages of Sin book. There are plenty of reviews of this book.[4][5][6][7][8] For Allen, however, I'm not seeing notability: no WP:NAUTHOR for the single reviewed book, nor WP:NPROF, nor GNG. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep. Three reviews of the earlier book, published using only middle initial, brings the subject to a pass of WP:NAUTHOR.[9][10][11] Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — non notable academic/author. No significant coverage observed. Celestina007 (talk) 10:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep seems to be a borderline pass of WP:AUTHOR which is generally accepted to require multiple reviews of multiple works; he has two rather well-recieved, reviewed and held works. (reviews as listed by Russ Woodroofe; library holdings appear to be 802 and 772 for his two books) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Fails WP:NPROF and WP:NAUTHOR by all standards. No references to attest to notability or significance to his field of work. Runforlimit505 (talk) 05:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC) — Runforlimit505 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. The reviews turned up by Russ Woodroofe during this AfD now demonstrate a pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2020 (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.