Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Jipping

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Jipping

[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)

Does not meet WP:BLPPROD requirement of articles containing "no sources in any form". However, it does not meet the requirement of "All BLPs must have at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article". Snowycats (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Snowycats (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Snowycats (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I've added a decent source. I feel this needs a review under WP:NACADEMIC criterion 1, and I also think he may pass criterion 7. I might disagree with his views, but I believe his various actions and roles make him notable. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any basis for notability here. I don't see the applicability of WP:NACADEMIC criterion 1 ("The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources"). I see he's been published a lot, and appeared as a guest on TV shows as a commentator (which is not itself a basis for notability), but no indication that his publications or guest appearances have made a 'significant impact". TJRC (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG as the subject doesn't have significant coverage in multiple secondary reliable sources. Masum Reza^📞 22:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His citation record does not make the case for WP:PROF#C1 notability, and the sources available do not make the case for #C7 or GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:30, 30 June 2019 (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.