Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Green (academic)

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. ✗plicit 00:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Joshua Green (academic)

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Joshua Green (academic) (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)

Does not meet WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• Delete. These two books are extremely frequently cited and would both easily pass notability guidelines for books, but they're both co-authored (by notable academics we have articles on), so they don't make as solid a WP:NAUTHOR pass as a pair of monographs would. I might be inclined to argue for a keep if he were still in academia, but he left the field ten years ago: so what we're looking at right now is already basically the fullest possible version of this article, and it's almost entirely sentences about the books - sentences that already exist on his co-authors' wikipedia articles. We'd be better off having articles on the two books. -- asilvering (talk) 04:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for either academics or writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• Delete agree with nom--and Asilvering. Subject doesn't meet GNG in his own right. Cabrils (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
• Delete subject does not seem to be notable in own right. While the subject is involved in two books which seem to be notable in their own rights, N is not inherited. AtD would be to redirect to one of the books is it had an article. Aoziwe (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• Delete Flimsy RS here. As noted, the books which form a large part of the RS are co-authored. Not really featured in the articles, and other references are not RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

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.