Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Braund

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Braund

[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)

A creation by sockpuppet of User:Novonium, with no substantial edits by other editors. Proposed for CSD A7, but this was removed with edit summary "deprodding: his "Ruling Roman Britain" was widely reviewed, and he seems to be an acknowledged expert on both Roman imperialism and Greek colonisation". The subject may be notable but the article should not be allowed to stay as it was created by a block-evading sockpuppet. I seem to have missed this in checking the user's contributions and nominating for CSD G-5. It is also quite possible that the article is wildly inaccurate: see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Awkward for another Oskosst contribution. PamD 14:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. PamD 14:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination corrected in a couple of points. PamD 14:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete his notability as an academic is less than clear. We put in blocks for reasons, people should not be able to create new articles to evade these blocks. We should not leave in articles that were created against our administrative controls. That undermines any effectiveness of these controls.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I deprodded because I thought a fair case could be made for notability, but block-evasion puts a different complexion on things. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no prejudice against recreation, per
WP:AUTHOR with multiple published reviews of his books on JSTOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete without prejudice against recreation, per
talk) 05:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:51, 23 June 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.