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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bogdanor[edit]

Paul Bogdanor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Appears to be a prolific blogger (and occasional writer). This article however, is poorly sourced. I could not find any reliable source references about the individual, although a fair number of citations were made to the book he co-authored(which may be worthy of an article). Appears to be one of the many wikipedia articles about someone popular in the blogosphere, but with limited claim to notability otherwise.

As it stands, the article is little more than a WP:COATRACK for expressing anti-leftist points of view rather than information about the author. Sailsbystars (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Sailsbystars (talk) 22:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Sailsbystars (talk) 22:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete: I could only find sixteen cites, total, on Google News [1] about Bogdanor, and none discussing him in any detail at all, let alone substantive detail, as is required. I disagree with the WP:COATRACK premise of the nom - the article doesn't advocate any positions, but merely states that the subject holds them - but I would expect a prominent blogger to have far more G-News cites, and so believe that the subject neither passes the GNG nor the WP:BIO bar.  Ravenswing  20:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not passing WP:GNG. I think this is the more relevant standard than WP:PROF since his main claim to notability seems to be his work in the popular press and he doesn't seem to be an academic. But the sources in the article and that I could find in Google news archive seem only to mention him trivially; for instance reference [1] ("are there no moral barometers on campus") invokes his name only as the co-author of a quote used to start an otherwise-unrelated essay. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2010 (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.