Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francisco Gil-White (2nd nomination)

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Gil-White

[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)

Nominated for deletion on the grounds that the subject doesn't meet the notability criteria set out at Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria. According to Google Scholar Gil-White has an h index of 12. I don't know what is typical in the field of Anthropology, but to me that looks like the publishing record of a junior academic. That would be consistent with his current obscure employment status. As far as I can see, Gil-White's sole claim to fame was his activism/notoriety, which at this point is ancient history and long forgotten. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Despite the consensus at the prior AFD, I am not convinced there is evidence of notability. Most professors are cited. I don't think this guy is that highly regarded.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not even come close to passing GNG. All the sources are to his own works or websites. His work does not rise to the level of impacting his discipline broadly defined. And nothing else comes even close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:18, 30 June 2018 (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.