Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Millmow

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The result was keep (withdrawn). Daniel (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Millmow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

promotional and non-notable Fails WP:PROF and GNG, and certainly fails the much more important NOT ADVERTISING (TimTrent is not the creator--it's an artifact of a self-move from AfC by the obviously coi editor, who would seem an undeclared paid editor for Federation University Australia--I'm checking their other articles).

Two books only, one of which is the thesis--neither are in many libraries. The "frequent commentary" are his own publications, which are too minor for PROF and self-published as far as GNG is concerned.do not amount to notability. The award is a blatantly promotional award from his own university. , DGG ( talk ) 21:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I concur with the nom. And no, I am not the creating editor. Fails WP:NPROF. Any article containing the word "Notable" tends to fail in my opinion. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 06:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I see some progress towards WP:NAUTHOR, with two reviews of his books [1] [2]. Still looks a bit light to me, and I agree citations also look light for fall far short of WP:NPROF. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:AUTHOR. I found and added to the article four published reviews of one of his books, seven of another, two more each of two more, and a seven-article journal special issue entirely devoted to the second book. That's significantly more my threshold for this notability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:AUTHOR. Edits for tone might be necessary, but that's not an AfD matter. XOR'easter (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NAUTHOR and WP:HEY of David Eppstein. Plenty of reviews now. WP:PROMO issues are much improved over when this was brought to AfD, although sourcing is still weak (apart from the reviews, which are fine). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the others above and WP:HEY. Dr. Universe (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I would strike out references relying on "Journal of Economic and Social Policy", as subject was a founder and co-editor ?, but even so seems to have sufficient referencing to pass notability. Aoziwe (talk) 04:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm withdrawing this my apologies for noy checking adequately. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.