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. The article was improved during the deletion discussion, but not to the point of there being consensus to keep it. However, there also is no meeting of the minds that the page should be deleted. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen William Boyd[edit]

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

Non-notable college lecturer, fails wp:prof. GregJackP Boomer! 16:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. This is a case of WP:COI or perhaps even WP:AUTO that fails every possible notability guideline for WP:BIO. Qworty (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The current detail-free state of the article would seem to invite speedy deletion under A7. But among his publications, "Heritage tourism" has 283 citations in Google scholar, "Managing ecotourism: an opportunity spectrum approach" has 168, etc. To me this indicates that he may pass WP:PROF#C1. I'm only holding off on a keep !vote because I don't think we can have an article without some sort of reliable sources that allow us to say something nontrivial about the subject, and those aren't present in the article as it stands. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete without prejudice against recreation~~ Weak Keep -- David Eppstein's research establishes notability, ~~but as it is this is practically a no-content article and should be deleted under those grounds, but can be recreated later.~~ enough information and sources added to be worth keeping. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Vejvančický (talk · contribs) has improved the article, and I think the improved sourcing, the high citations already mentioned, and the new claim of notability (some recognition for his book in Times Higher Education) is enough to put this above threshold. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(note: vote changed above...) -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I didn't expect to be voting! this way; I thought that, given the Google Scholar results cited by David Eppstein and the Times Higher Education award, I'd be able to find reasonable in-depth coverage of Boyd by impartial sources. However, a number of Google searches have not produced this. In particular, I did a search for ("stephen boyd" otago ulster ontario), which I thought would pick up capsule biograpies of him; but apart from University of Ulster pages, I got nothing informative. A search for ("stephen boyd" "heritage tourism") found lots of hits for Amazon, Alibris, eBay, etc., but nothing like a serious review of the book. There appears to be a review of Nature-based Tourism in Peripheral Areas: Development or Disaster?, which Boyd co-edited, at JSTOR; unfortunately, I don't currently have access to JSTOR, so can't see whether the review actually discusses Boyd in any detail. A Google search for ("stephen boyd" "peripheral areas") produced nothing else that looked like a serious review of the book. It doesn't look to me as though Boyd passes the "Average Professor Test" laid out under the "General notes" head at WP:ACADEMIC. Ammodramus (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've skimmed the JSTOR review -- it is more focused on the contents of individual chapters than on Boyd and his co-editor's contributions (though it does say that that's important, but probably not enough to change your view one way or another.). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 09:39, 13 October 2012 (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.