Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony C. Ocampo
: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. Deor (talk) 11:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
=[[Anthony C. Ocampo]]=
:{{la|Anthony C. Ocampo}} – (
:({{Find sources AFD|Anthony C. Ocampo}})
promotional bio for non notable assistant professor. In a field dependent on books, he has not yet published any. DGG ( talk ) 09:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. B E C K Y S A Y L E S 09:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. B E C K Y S A Y L E S 09:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. B E C K Y S A Y L E S 09:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. B E C K Y S A Y L E S 09:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. I couldn't find any sources to show notability (other than his involvement in the said lawsuit). ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 10:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable professor, failes WP:PROF test. The lawsuit appears to be not very important thing either. (don't talk secrets) (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree with above. Springboarding off of a lawsuit that received some brief publicity is not enough. Agricola44 (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC).
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. Re DGG's argument about "a field dependent on books", some sociologists depend more on journal articles than books ([https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=-VGAs1cAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao an example]) but the citation record doesn't help there either. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete lacks evidence of notability. B E C K Y S A Y L E S 09:52, 16 January 2015 (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.