Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Hoberman

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Hoberman

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:ACADEMIC. Multiple WP:BLP issues with the page, as well as sourcing issues and WP:NOR. The article was created by a WP:SPA IP address back in 2005. GuardianH (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Language, History, Sports, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete unless better sources can be found. I couldn't find anything independent of Hoberman himself or University of Texas. Cnilep (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep -- ugh, this article is a mess, a minefield of BLP and SPA and NOR problems (even the photo!). I won't weep for it if it's deleted. But we do have a full professor at a major research university (usually a good sign of a WP:PROF likely pass) with books by U. Chicago Press and Houghton Mifflin, which is probably enough with any of the controversies to pass WP:AUTHOR. But what a mess. There's the old saying "AfD is not cleanup" but a Soft Delete (=expired PROD, no prejudice against creating again) might be a good way to deal with the major BLP issues. And yet, I think the subject is more likely notable than not. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as NACADEMIC. I did some bold editing, removed promotional stuff, but also added in some academic references. His most controversial book gets over ~1100 cites on G-scholar. It is quite possible that many of those are debunking his thesis, but I believe that still counts toward academic qualifications. Lamona (talk) 05:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I counted 14 reviews of his books (not all the same one) on JSTOR. I think he passes WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes both NACADEMIC and NAUTHOR. I stopped counting reviews of his books when I got to 20 for just the first two books I tried, and there is even published back-and-forth about them. Few academics can equal that for two books. Zero^talk 10:10, 15 May 2024 (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.