Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy E. Vaughn

: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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

=[[Billy E. Vaughn]]=

:{{la|Billy E. Vaughn}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy E. Vaughn}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{Find sources|Billy E. Vaughn}})

Obscure academic whose chief claim to fame seems to be that he was quoted in a Washington Post article once. Note, though, that finding references is a little difficult as there is also a famous bandleader named Billy Vaughn. —Chowbok ☠ 12:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep: Try looking like this: {{Find sources|Billy E. Vaughn cultural diversity}}. Clearly cited all over the place, seems notable to me. Article needs some serious work with respect to style though. -- BenTels (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  • No, those links don't hit anything. Even standard [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Billy+E.+Vaughn%22 GS search] finds only 1 cited article (3 citations). Agricola44 (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC).
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete. There's nothing here that justifies a claim of notability, as noted above. Agricola44 (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC).
  • Delete. GS gives an h index of 2. Fails WP:ProfC#1. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC).
  • Delete Despite the claims in the article, no actual published books; Scopus shows zero actual peer-reviewed papers; many minor publications--essays, reports, book chapters. I'm trying not to be prejudiced by the outrageously promotional tone, because if he had done notable work, the article could be rewritten easily enough by removing a good deal of content. DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 2 October 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.