Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Smith (Political Scientist)

:{{la|Benjamin Smith (Political Scientist)}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Benjamin_Smith_(Political_Scientist) Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Benjamin Smith (Political Scientist)}})

WP:BLP, written by the subject himself and thus a conflict of interest, of a political scientist with no strong claim to passing WP:NACADEMICS. The referencing here is entirely to primary sources -- his own staff profile on the website of his own university, his own book's promotional page on the website of its own publisher, and six articles where he's the bylined author of the piece rather than the subject of it. No reliable source coverage about him has been shown, which is what it takes to get a Wikipedia article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Weak keep 1100 cites on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC).
• Keep per {{u|Xxanthippe}} and clean up. Some of his works are very significant by political science standards (e.g. [https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=35difIUAAAAJ&citation_for_view=35difIUAAAAJ:zA6iFVUQeVQC], also triggering replies to Smith e.g. [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1690346 here]), and per WP:PROF primary sources such as institutional profiles are acceptable if at least one of the core criteria is demonstrable. —Nizolan ^(talk) 08:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep The level at which he is cited establishes him as a major contributor in his field, thus passing one of the guidelines for notability of an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.