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.
DeleteNot notable...Self written article...Do we allow every teacher with self published books at every University to have an article about themselves? It is articles like this that literally undermine the very fabric of the Encyclopedia. Finkellium (talk) 06:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What on Earth do you mean with "self-published books"? His books were published by some of the most reputed publishers (Wiley, Penguin, etc.) Not a single one of his books appears to be "self-published". Sorry, but that remark is plain ridiculous. --Randykitty (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You want to be on the list, following me around then? Go look up his latest books, kindle specials, like ten copies sold. PLease.Finkellium (talk) 07:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what list you're talking about. As for following you around (I assume you are referring to the fact that I edited the Alice Crimmins article, where your additions have now been removed by multiple editors), it is quite normal to check the contributions of a user who displays some level of incompetence. As for Bremner, who is the subject of this discussion, it seems to me that you have no idea what "self-published" means. To have publishers like Wiley and Penguin agree to publish your book, you need to do a lot more than just write the book: you will have to go through an extensive review process and having them accept your book proposal is a major accomplishment for an academic. It's nothing like sending your manuscript to one of those vanity publishers and paying them to publish your book for you. And although I'm an old fart who thoroughly dislikes ebooks, I don't see what's wrong with having Kindle versions of a book. And where do you get the "ten copies sold" information from? I don't think that Wiley or Penguin have ever published a book that did not at least sell several hundred copies. As you say indeed: Please! --Randykitty (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Being an autobio is not a reason for deletion, at most a reason to rewrite an article in a neutral way, if necessary. Given Bremner's stature, the article is remarkably neutral. Let me just give some citation statistics from Web of Science: 238 publications listed, cited 14885 times, with an h-index of 65. Top 5 citation counts: 1290, 791, 731, 556, and 350. Just one of those is normally enough here for a "keep" decision. Article certainly needs cleanup and expansion, but Bremner passes WP:ACADEMIC without any possible doubt. As a note to the nom, please read WP:BEFORE and research nominations better before bringing them to AfD. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 12:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- A user called "user:Dougbremner" has made dozens of edits to this page in 2011, but did not start the article originally. Another editor raised this concern to the user: User_talk:Dougbremner. A potential COI certainly, but this appears to be historical since there has been a previous COI noticeboard discussion. There is no real grounds to delete the page, per RandyKitty's searches, notability does not seem to be an issue. Lesion (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Complementing Randykitty's results, the citation counts in Google scholar [1] are well above the threshold for WP:PROF#C1. He apparently has staked out some controversial positions online [2] and in his popular-press writing. Perhaps our article should find some reliably published criticism to include for balance, rather than just reporting uncritically on this material as it does now, but I don't see this as being a problem that deletion is appropriate for. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:GNG. The references at the article include significant coverage in one NYT article, and minor coverage in articles from NYT and CNN. Google News provides other sources. The rest of the references in the article are more or less worthless, but he does appear to be a go-to guy for the media in the areas he writes about. --MelanieN (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2013 (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.