Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omotunde E. G. Johnson

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Omotunde E. G. Johnson[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)

Does not meet WP:SCHOLAR, no WP:SIGCOV, the sources do not appear to substantiate notability. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's a few well-cited works (336,122,91) and a clutch of respectable ones (59,55,51,40); most date from c. 1970–1995 when citation density was considerably lower, particularly given that the topic isn't all that citation heavy, afaik. The subject looks to have multiple books, which should be checked for reviews; one is held by 1,294 libraries. Will try to do more research on this in the morning. ETA He wrote the (long) entry on the African Union in The Princeton Encyclopedia of the World Economy which doesn't speak directly to our guidelines but suggests he's regarded as an expert. ETA2 I note our article on h-index states that Google Scholar has "limited coverage of pre-1990 publications". Espresso Addict (talk) 02:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, In addition to echoing what Espresso Addict mentioned above, I have added a number of books which are authored by the subject. It appears that the subject comfortably meets criteria 1 of WP:NACADEMIC. Cirton (talk) 12:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC for me as the citation count is low. Chance of meeting WP:AUTHOR is weak. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 03:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, In agreement with Espresso Addict and Cirton above, it appears the subject comfortably meets critera 1 for both WP:NACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR. For the latter, only an important or authoritative figure on African Economics would write the entry on the African Union in The Princeton Encyclopedia of the World Economy.User:Inamo11 (talk) 11:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify five of the ten reference are by him, 3 are profiles, one is a press-release and one is a book from a reputable publisher; doesn't give me confidence he is notable. He might meet N-Author. The books are well cited, but all IMF publications are cited, which doesn't give me confidence either. I couldn't find reviews. I was currently in the process of reviewing at npp and planning to draft it once I read the read the references, and noticed the Afd tag. Currently he fails WP:SIGCOV. They references are real mess. scope_creep^Talk 11:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Going with a formal keep, per my comment previously. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment Based off my search of my university database, I'm finding stuff he has written, not stuff written about him or his books (the portal has a "book review" search parameter). Same with Google searches. The Sierra Leone Telegraph likes to pull him for quotes, for what it's worth. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2022 (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.