Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garett Jones

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 no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Garett Jones

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

This article has superficial referenciness, but the sources are not independent - the entire article is drawn from primary sources associated with the subject. This is not a surprise, since it was created by a user who has been extensively promoting (and paying others to promote) articles supporting fundamentalist libertarian ideology. Guy (Help!) 14:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regardless of the quality of the article, and the motivation of the editor, the subject has received significant coverage. From very reliable sources. Here are three: [1],[2],[3]. Jacona (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A quick look through the "Find Sources" line reveals quite a few non-trivial sources, though without one in-depth dedicated article. After a cursory look-through of all the material elicited, I think, perhaps, a good idea to withdraw this Afd as per WP:EXISTS Tapered (talk) 06:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a good idea nearly to blank the page since, at the moment, it's largely WP:PROMO. Tapered (talk) 06:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - the three sources JaconaFrere provides don't really satisfy WP:RS, I think. The first two are reviews of Jones' books, and not about Jones himself. I'm not sure if that means those books satisfy WP:NBOOK, but they don't imply Jones passes WP:NAUTHOR. The third source is clearly not independent, it is a blog post written by a colleague at the same university. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Jones appears to be notable. I've made the article more neutral and added a criticism section.Jonpatterns (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as WP:Too soon. Cites in high-cited field of pop-economics not yet sufficient, but that may change Xxanthippe (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2017 (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.