Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Culliney (2nd nomination)

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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Culliney

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

Not notable fails WP:ACADEMIC. It appears there is little indication that he has "contributed significantly" to his field, any more than the average academic anyways. Ohc ^¡digame! 09:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I noted in the first AFD, he has published three Sierra Club books, a very popular, well-covered and well-received line of books in its pre-internet day. Google books search shows enough references in popular literature and in magazines like Nature to support notability, although this is an article that probably requires print resources. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 12:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -As an entertainment historian, on a topical look it does seem that the subject would not meet up to WP:NOTABILITY. However,upon research, I find that he has made several notable contributions to the literary world and does have valid sources that would qualify him imo to sustain the article.--Canyouhearmenow 11:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Not convinced that there's anything online to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC; specifically, for a relatively prolific author I'd expect Google Scholar to turn up some book reviews in academic journals. While it's possible that paper sources would establish notability, I'd expect to see more online, and it's hard to !vote "keep" in good conscience based on a hunch that sources might exist. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 02:11, 29 July 2014 (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.