Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Professor Justin Paul

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. There is consensus that the individual is notable per NPROF C1, but there is also consensus that a name change is warranted. However, there was not a clear stand-out for what that name should be. In the absence of an imminent demand for an interim name-change, it would be preferable if a discussion on the talk page could be had to separate that. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Justin Paul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

A ref-bombed CV type article declined at AFC a couple of times already under Draft:Justin Paul (professor) JW 1961 Talk 12:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Has a fairly high h-index of 31 [1] – Thjarkur (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If kept, the article needs renaming. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftifty to Draft:Justin Paul (business scholar) or similar. I added his GS profile to the article. It looks like a pass of WP:NPROF C1, and I believe the editor-in-chief role likely meets C8. The article looks like it is not yet ready for mainspace (it's at the quality level described by WP:TNT), and should incubate in draft space. Comment that the draft previously submitted to AfC appears to be nearly identical to this one. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment that page history may need to be merged with Draft:Justin Paul (professor), which has some substantial contributions from other editors, due to copyright concerns. Pinging @Scope creep: as contributor. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep and move to Draft:Justin Paul (business scholar) after cleanup work on the article. Particular hat tip to XOR'easter for wisely cutting down. It still needs some work, but we have a start. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftifty, or if not, delete as per WP:TNT, or even just stubify (is that a word??). The person seems to be notable, but the article needs more than just a bit of cleanup. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename, after looking at it again today. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I thought originally it would have been worth deleting this, and keeping the draft, but the draft had slightly fewer references, although the content looks identical. He is notable, with at six papers with more than 100 citations. It needs a copyedit, bib section added, references changed from bare url's and additional secondary sources added to address the primary sources tag. There should be some available. There is a wee bit of puff to remove and these duff [2] references removes, these page reference. I don't know why folk put these in. They are zero worth. There is no content in it, once there is a bib section. It will be a seed article. scope_creep^Talk 12:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Made by an SPA who did AFC at first under Draft:Justin_Paul_(professor). However, his google scholar shows hundreds of citations so he qualifies as an academic. Expertwikiguy (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:PROF. Article has undergone some cleanup, enough to make it still not good but acceptable. The refbombing is annoying, but I think the current draft review environment teaches new editors to do that (because the standard response to a request for a review is "no, you don't have enough references") so it's difficult to hold that against the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. for for Pete's sake, move as per Kj cheetham. He probably passes GNG and PROF, per David Eppstein. Bearian (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and move to either Justin Paul (academic) or Justin Paul (scholar), not sure what the most appropriate dab should be. Passes WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article needs some cleanup, but his number of citations and h-index are high enough to pass WP:PROF. --Tataral (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Marketing researchers totally throw off my AfD senses because I get trapped in a cycle of questioning fame and perceptions of reality. Do they only appear notable because they're good at marketing themselves? But then if they're that good at appearing notable, maybe they're actually talented enough to deserve the notability? Are there any successful marketing academics who have marketed themselves poorly, but really are notable? Omg but is anyone ever really notable anyway?? Here is the Scopus breakdown for Dr. Paul compared to his coauthors' credentials (or skill at marketing themselves? or is it all the same? or...):

He seems very notable for his sub-field, but whether that field is impactful enough for NPROF notability isn't super clear. Perhaps his editorship is enough to push him over. JoelleJay (talk) 07:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the C1 case, while present, might not be entirely clear. The chief editorship of a Wiley journal that was established in 1977 looks like a solid pass of NPROF C8 to me. I'm surprised more editors haven't mentioned it in their !vote rationales. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:50, 19 January 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.