Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Arthur Williams (professor)

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. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Arthur Williams (professor)

[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)

Was prodded with reason "Fails

WP:BIO), but as far as one can tell, he could have lied all this time that he was once a thug just to achieve more attention. I wanted to see others' opinion. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 01:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 01:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 01:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 01:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 01:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wasn’t sure about this one either. I thought if there reviews of his books he might pass as an author but didn’t look to see. Mccapra (talk) 05:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is way over promotional. I do not think the sources are enough to show notability, but the article as it is is written as an add to try to get people to schedule him as a speaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis individual is authentic, and he has a litany of acting credits. He is recognized as a scholar, domestically and internationally. He has written over four books. What is the argument against? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unmaskytp (talk • contribs) 00:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

WP:AUTHOR, as these are the guidelines pertinent to this deletion discussion. Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 01:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Weak delete. I don't see any sign of
WP:ORGNAME. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per my PROD rationale and Russ Woodroofe. I don't see the pass of GNG based on mostly local sourcing, and certainly don't see PROF or NAUTHOR being met. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing me Walwal20. I apologize my friend unmaskytp.

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.