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. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (Gimme a message) 15:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Hanlon

[edit]

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

Nominate for deletion Seems to fail WP:PROF. Could find nothing form Ghits and article to prove notability. Boleyn (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD was never transcluded. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 20:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep -- h-index of at least 14, a gbooks search with the added term Mozambique indicates several thousand hits, and there is no shortage of news hits either. The nom's inability to find sources is puzzling to say the least. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Four hits in GS with over 100 cites. Plenty in GN. A seriously mistaken nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (chat) 10:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In Google scholar, two of the top five hits for Mozambique are his works. That, even more than the high citation counts, convinces me that he is one of the world's leading experts on the subject and passes WP:PROF#C1. He has a good case for criterion C7 as being frequently quoted in the media regarding Mozambique. And there are many nontrivial published reviews of his works e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6], giving us plenty of source material to say something about what he's done. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2011 (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.