Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael L. Radelet

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. It's unclear whether the subject really requested deletion but even if they did, consensus is that he is notable enough to warrant an article. Any problems with the content of the article can be fixed by editing. SoWhy 08:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael L. Radelet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Michael L. Radelet has requested that his Wikipedia page be taken down — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumo76163 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - Radelet seems to be the "go-to" guy whenever the death penalty gets brought up, but with that being said there's almost nothing about him; every source I can find is either a quote from him or a reference to his work. Primefac (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - per subject request Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It doesn't matter what the subject thinks, it only matter whether he is notable or not (well, that and WP:BLP stuff). The article doesn't seem to have BLP issues, it is hardly quality coverage, but it is on par with what we usually have (often written by the subjects themselves, or by their friends/students/etc.). The subject passes WP:PROF - Google Scholar shows numerous articles by him (often co-authored, but still...) with 200+, a lot more with 100+, citations. He has a solo-authored publication in American Sociological Review, that's a flagship sociological journal. As far as works about him and his impact, there's not much (he isn't dead yet, so no obituaries, etc.) but I foundC. Ronald Huff; Martin Killias (2013). Wrongful Convictions and Miscarriages of Justice: Causes and Remedies in North American and European Criminal Justice Systems. Routledge. pp. 402–. ISBN 978-0-415-53993-7.: "His work on erroneous convictions... is widely credited with introducing the "innocence argument" into contemporary death penalty debates". Granted, that's from a section on contributor's biographies and it might have been written by him, but it is in a reliably-published academic book. Overall, I think he is on the notable side of notability, and that means his bio stays. If the subject thinks there are inaccuracies/bias, he should be more clear and report them on the talk page/here/help forum, and we can take a look at fixing the article. Also ping User:Randykitty. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He doesn't meet NPROF. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"For the purposes of satisfying Criterion 1, the academic discipline of the person in question needs to be sufficiently broadly construed. Major disciplines, such as physics, mathematics, history, political science, or their significant subdisciplines (e.g., particle physics, algebraic geometry, medieval history, fluid mechanics, Drosophila genetics are valid examples). Overly narrow and highly specialized categories should be avoided. Arguing that someone is an expert in an extremely narrow area of study is, in and of itself, not necessarily sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1, except for the actual leaders in those subjects." Based on that, I don't believe he meets NPROF#1, and I see no claim he meets any of the other standards. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete per Primefac and Power~enwiki. I can not add much more to their words. Bearian (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral Heavily-cited researcher and based on that easily clears the bar of WP:PROF. I'm not sure how much we should weigh the subject's preference. I tend to agree with Piotrus that this is more a situation where the article should be fixed than one calling for deletion. I'll leave the decision to the closing admin, my personal opinion being that this subject is clearly notable (note to Primefac: academics are usually notable for their work and that is what is being covered), but I don't think it would break the encyclopedia if he's not covered. --Randykitty (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's why I'm only a weak delete - he's clearly a well-respected individual in his field, but I'm just not finding any significant coverage. I begrudgingly accept that PROF exists, but I haven't yet seen it demonstrated in the article. Either of these will change my opinion. Primefac (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete On balance, not notable enough for wikipedia. Doesn't pass criteria on WP:NMUSIC. Darx9url (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Darx9url, Radelet isn't a musician, so why would NMUSIC matter? Primefac (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pasted and saved comment into wrong window, sorry. Please ignore. Darx9url (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Piotrus. Doing a quick Google Books search shows that his work led to a sea change in how the subject of wrongful executions was studied in academia, which would meet PROF in my view. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, WP:BLPDELETEREQUEST and WP:BLPDELETE do exist, but in this case it's unclear if the subject as made the request via WP:OTRS, since the claim that a request has been made is from a student enrolled in a Wikipedia-related course at Prof. Radelet's university. I also believe that the subject is above the level where a delete request can be actioned without consensus at AFD. If closed as keep, the subject should be contacted and asked what they find objectionable about the article.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:17, 16 June 2017 (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.