Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Beever

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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Beever

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I don't believe this individual meets WP:NBIO or WP:ACADEMIC. He is the editor of several books on ethics but not the author of any. Nor does he seem to have published any papers in peer-reviewed journals. There is another published researcher, Jonathan E. Beever, but his area of research is biochemistry. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Assistant professors rarely meet WP:PROF, and I'm not seeing an exception here. – Joe (talk) 10:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:TOOSOON. As the nominator suggests, edited volumes contribute much less towards academic notability than authored (and reviewed!) books. His Google scholar profile doesn't show anything that would contribute towards WP:PROF#C1, and there seems to be nothing else in the article that would contribute towards any other notability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no substantial secondary sources. Fails to meet WP:GNG. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG due to a lack of significant independent coverage. I don't see that WP:NPROF is met, either. Papaursa (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2018 (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.