Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barrie Needham

: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. Courcelles 05:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

=[[Barrie Needham]]=

:{{la|Barrie Needham}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Barrie Needham}})

Does not appear to meet notability criteria. I went to the page intending to improve the referencing (currently non-existent) but I see no evidence that the subject is notable, beyond being an academic with a couple of publications to his name. Bluewave (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment Has a GS h index of 11 so has achieved more than "having a couple of publications to his name". In fact he appears to have more than fifty publications to his name. Nominator should carry out WP:Before more carefully. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC).

::To be fair, WP:Before does not tell you to find the h-index of people. The subject's notability is not apparent from the article itself and a quick search of Amazon came up with 5 books written between 1977 and 2006. Plus it is tagged as an orphan, so he certainly isn't the kind of academic who is widely cross-referenced within Wikipedia. The article has been languishing on Wikipedia with very little interest shown in it, and no citations. Surely a valid way to check whether anyone cares about it is to nominate it for deletion? Bluewave (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

:::AfD is not a mechanism to find out whether anyone cares about an article. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete. I couldn't find enough citations in Google scholar to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1, and I couldn't find enough articles about him or his works in Google news to convince me of a pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Borderline. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC).
Comment: What do you mean "borderline"? --みんな空の下 (トーク | I wanna chAngE!) 03:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

::::The region in which it is not clear whether to keep or delete. I hope this helps. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC).

Delete doesn't appear to pass WP:PROF. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment. I found the article as a result of participating in the project to eliminate unreferenced biographies of living persons (of which this is one). Speaking pragmatically, my real preference for the outcome of this vote is either that the article is deleted, or that someone feels strongly enough about keeping it that they are prepared to track down reliable references to source the article. A really unfortunate outcome would be a vote to keep it but with no-one prepared to improve it! Bluewave (talk) 12:18, 31 December 2010 (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.