Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immanuel Ness

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. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Immanuel Ness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Paid for promo/COI. He has a very low citations count. There is no way he meets WP:GNG. Oluwatoniyi (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Colorado, and New York. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see evidence of Ness passing GNG in the citations. Fix the COI issues, keep the article.--User:Namiba 19:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think it is probably a keep based on potentially as an author passing WP:NAUTHOR combined with his work as editor of some journals. They are oxford university press journals, quite low but it its a low citations field. I think there is more than enough to pass WP:GNG. The article needs about 20 hours worth of work to clean to references and add additional references. There is bits of it that are cited to single refs and don't cover it properly per WP:V. The image of Ness, he looks like "Death warmed up". Perhaps a better image? scope_creep^Talk 08:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: passes WP:NAUTHOR for having reviews of his academic books, and I would say also passes WP:NPROF on the grounds of being the editor of several encyclopedias. -- asilvering (talk) 01:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep his edited scholarly books are important--he succeeds in bringing together lots of established scholars writing essays for his encyclopedic multivolume worked on major topics. Rjensen (talk) 06:15, 1 August 2023 (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.