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. Passes WP:NAUTHOR. (non-admin closure) scope_creep^Talk 11:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charlton McIlwain (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)

Fairly low h-index. Fail WP:NPROF. scope_creep^Talk 00:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - meets WP:AUTHOR due to multiple reviews of multiple works. Thsmi002 (talk) 05:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:AUTHOR (h-index is the wrong way to measure productivity for the kind of academic whose main output is books). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Seems a solid keep. Nomination Withdrawn

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.