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 No consensus. Opinions are fairly evenly split between keeping and deletion, and as this has already been here for three weeks it seems unlikely that a further relist will change this. Michig (talk) 10:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Black[edit]

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

Non-notable college professor. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:PROF GrapedApe (talk) 02:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Can't find cites on GS. Maybe somebody else can. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, a BLP with no references, reads very promotional. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. His book Petrolia has 51 Google scholar citations (the rest are in single digits when they're found at all), not enough for a convincing case for WP:PROF#C1, but it does have some four published reviews: JSTOR 3594746 JSTOR 3985468 JSTOR 25147879 doi:10.1086/533300. I think that's not unusual for an academic book of this type, but if he had two books with this level of attention I might !vote keep. As it is, I think there's a WP:BIO1E problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- He has a significant published output. Being published by academic publishers suggests notability; as do his editorial appointments, some of which are not posts that non-entities get. His present post seems to be rather higher than head of a university department. That post would be held by a professor (with a chair), who would certainly be notable; so, surely, the holder of a higher level post is. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing in his CV rises to the level of any of the WP:PROF standards.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I have tagged the page for speedy deletion. First, because it is horrendously promotional and, second, that's not very surprising given that the text is either verbatim copied or slightly re-phrased from his own (also rather commercial and not very academic) website (here). --Randykitty (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have removed the promotionalism and the copyvio, and therefore removed the speedy tag. . The author of a CHOICE outstanding academic book is notable as an author--I'm adding the reference, and the rest is supported by his official CV. (As for WP:PROF, it depends on the reception of his books--there is no presumption of notability , as Penn State-Altoona is not a research university DGG ( talk )
- But that CHOICE designation doesn't make the book notable, so how could it make the author notable?--GrapedApe (talk) 00:40, 18 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. user:Randykitty and User:DGG did a good job in cutting out the cruft. Bearian (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It deeply concerns me that admins who should know better are !voting keep for an unreferenced BLP. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI very definitely feel that a CHOICE Outstanding Books designation : does indeed make the book notable. (and in turn having writing a notable book normally makes the author notable). And if I have the chance--I would love to demonstrate this by writing an article about every one of them and their authors. They only reason I hesitate is I've been one of their reviewers for years now, though of course I wouldn't write an article on a book I reviewed, no matter how good I said it was). It's a selective review journal in the first place--the policy is not to bother with books that are not recommended unless they are so bad it's necessary to call them to notice; and the selection for Outstanding are made not by us ordinary reviewers, but by their editorial staff, though obviously based on what we say in our reviews.
Comment2 I do not understand what you mean by unreferenced; the significance of the book is demonstrated by the reviews; the routine noncontroversial aspects of the career by the official bio, unless there a reason for a bona fide challenge. DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 21 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 10:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you call "routine noncontroversial aspects" are part of the body of the article, which typically are required to have in-line citations in a BLP. This article lacks any independent reliable citations about Black as a person. The reviews are about Petrolia, not Black. I'm not convinced that those reviews equate to Black making a major impact in his field. Not only is there no clear guidance on what a "CHOICE" designation is worth, we have no independent reliable sourcing to show that Crude Reality was awarded anything at all. A search of ACRL Choice reveals nothing about the book and the claim is that they handed out the award. I honestly can't understand the defense being mounted for this article. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - no secondary sources attesting to his notability, just evidence he's a published academic, of which there are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, around the world. Like User:Chris troutman I'm confused as to why this should stay. AdventurousMe (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence he passes the notability requirements for an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of book reviews in academic journals, not just of Petrolia (cited in the article) but also Crude Reality: [1], [2], [3]. There's enough there to satisfy WP:GNG and probably WP:NACADEMICS #1. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 02:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources in the article and listed above. -- GreenC 02:00, 1 August 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.