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 keep. Tone 18:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Pincus[edit]

[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)

Subject is an academic and an author but does not meet WP:BIO, WP:NACADEMIC, or WP:AUTHOR. I was able to find one book that referenced the subject (Dominic, in the refs) but otherwise found no reliable sources that establish notability. I found several news articles by him, but none about him with the exception of an article in the University newspaper covering his retirement announcement. Likewise, I was able to find academic works written by him but not about him. With the exceptions listed above, the only sources that are specifically about him are routine coverage such as, his short bio in conjunction with articles he has written, and his bibliography (e.g., on the University website). Paisarepa (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Subject has several papers with hundreds of citations in what I believe to be a lower citation field. I think it's enough for WP:NPROF C1. His Understanding Diversity textbook also appears to be somewhat widely held (giving some support from NPROF C4). His other books have garnered at least a couple of reviews [1][2] (also his edited volume [3]). Although these few reviews are a bit weak for WP:NAUTHOR, they give some support. Comment that the lede of the article make him sound like he has fringe views on reverse discrimination, which doesn't necessarily look to be the case. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on pass of WP:Prof#C1 on GS citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep Has a decent number of cites, and some book reviews, etc. Article needs tidying, not deleting. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:04, 6 September 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.