Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bo Winegard

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. Tone 15:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Winegard

Bo Winegard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Looks like

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete
  WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Delete Not notable and the only thing that characterize him a bit is a controvert speech, which is not enough. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 08:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The firing is also in Inside Higher Ed [1], which I think is a RS. (I agree per nom that the sources currently in the article are not reliable.) His GS citations are non-trivial, although I'd vote delete per
  WP:TOOSOON in the absence of the firing coverage. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete not every person who receives coverage for controversy on their firing becomes notable. In this case even if we had an article, it should be named something like "removal of Bo Winegard controversy" because he is clearly not notable for anything else and is clearly not a notable academic. However, Wikipedia is not news, and the cutrrent controversy does not rise above news level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nomination and the above "delete" !votes. I don't think there's a case for
  WP:PROF, either (unimpressive citation profile, even when bulked up by Google Scholar's including non-peer-reviewed material). XOR'easter (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. The Inside Higher Ed piece on its own isn't enough for
  WP:NPROF. But we rarely keep assistant professors, and I don't see enough support for doing so here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete
  talk) 07:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. The coverage by Inside Higher Ed (which is the news section of Chronicle for Higher Education) the major US source for news in higher education is sufficient. If the major national newspaper in the world covers the story, nothing more is needed. We could call it Removal of BW, as suggested above. If deleted, please userify to me, because I am quite sure that coverage will increase--I expect this to become one of the relatively rare cases the AAUP will endorse,

More generally, ifwe do not have anarticle, then the available information will come from some publications that cannot be counted on to be objective. DGG ( talk ) 17:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete one in depth RS piece is not enough for notability either for the event or the person. Not every controversy deserves a WP article. If Winegard's research ever becomes notable the page can be recreated. buidhe 01:05, 2 May 2020 (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.