Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randolph Clarke

: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. Delete arguments are stronger in policy. Guy (Help!) 15:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

=[[Randolph Clarke]]=

:{{la|Randolph Clarke}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Randolph_Clarke Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Randolph Clarke}})

As seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two-stage model of free will, the article creator, User:Cmsreview, started a bunch of articles with problems. This one relies on a couple of primary sources, so there is no third party notability established. Binksternet (talk) 03:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Keep His h-index is [https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ivJb1wkAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao 17], which I think indicates that he has been widely cited by third parties. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that philosophy is typically a fairly low-citation field. EricEnfermero (Talk) 21:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

*Keep: Widely cited by third party sources. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 02:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

::Struck !vote by blocked sockpuppet. Davewild (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Delete A published academic, but does not meet any of the specific criteria at WP:ACADEMIC that would make him notable by WP definitions. LaMona (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Weak delete: A dozen or so well-cited papers, but not enough to be WP:PROF#C1 worthy. No evidence of fulfilling other WP:PROF criteria or WP:BASIC. Esquivalience ^t 02:22, 6 June 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.