Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Arthur Williams (professor)

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. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Arthur Williams (professor)

[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)

Was prodded with reason "Fails WP:NPROF, WP:NATH and WP:GNG. No sourcing to suggest otherwise. Best source is a diverse article, but isn't enough on its own.". I deprodded because it didn't seem like a perfectly clear delete decision. The guy has a combination of WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF, although he does not meet either. Could also argue that he is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" (WP:BIO), but as far as one can tell, he could have lied all this time that he was once a thug just to achieve more attention. I wanted to see others' opinion. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 01:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 01:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 01:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 01:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 01:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wasn’t sure about this one either. I thought if there reviews of his books he might pass as an author but didn’t look to see. Mccapra (talk) 05:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is way over promotional. I do not think the sources are enough to show notability, but the article as it is is written as an add to try to get people to schedule him as a speaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis individual is authentic, and he has a litany of acting credits. He is recognized as a scholar, domestically and internationally. He has written over four books. What is the argument against? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unmaskytp (talk • contribs) 00:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Unmaskytp. It is considered extremely rude to blank someone else's vote, so please refrain from doing that. I'm assuming you made it by mistake, for not being familiarized with the deletion proposal process. If you want the article to be kept, I suggest that you write keep in the beginning of your vote, in the same fashion as Johnpacklambert's vote. Also, your vote will have more strength if you base your arguments on the WP:Notability guidelines. Please consider reading WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:NPROF and WP:AUTHOR, as these are the guidelines pertinent to this deletion discussion. Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 01:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I don't see any sign of WP:NPROF, and I didn't find reviews for WP:NAUTHOR. There's a possible GNG case, but it is not so strong: he has some local coverage in the Knoxville News Sentinel and on U Tennessee radio (the independence of the latter is questionable), and somewhat broader scoped coverage on diverseeducation.com. Meanwhile, the article is promotional enough that WP:TNT appears to apply. Comment that the user's webpage is unmaskytp.com, which suggests rather strongly that Unmaskytp is either the subject or else engaged in undisclosed paid editing; the username appears to be in violation of WP:ORGNAME. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my PROD rationale and Russ Woodroofe. I don't see the pass of GNG based on mostly local sourcing, and certainly don't see PROF or NAUTHOR being met. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing me Walwal20. I apologize my friend unmaskytp.

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.