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. So Why 15:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Sutton (criminologist)

[edit]

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

Abandoned since 2010, primarily contributed to by biased sources. Self promotion. mordicai. (talk) 10:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: Could you expand on your reasoning, please? – Joe (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs to be thoroughly trimmed, but there is a notable subject underneath the promotional junk. As a criminologist, Sutton is reasonably well cited (WP:PROF#C1), and the awards and editorships cited in the article (WP:PROF#C2 and WP:PROF#C8) also suggest he is a notable scholar in his field. Besides, his strange book on Darwin attracted wide media coverage [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10], probably enough to pass the WP:GNG on its own. The fact that the article has not been edited in a while, and the content has outstanding problems, are not valid arguments for deletion. – Joe (talk) 12:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Posted at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Mike Sutton (criminologist). – Joe (talk) 12:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 12:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails PROF, ANYBIO, and GNG. Joe Roe falsely claims that the subject meets PROF C1 but C1 only says "highly cited" and there are no established metrics to see what that means, so I can as easily disagree and say the subject isn't cited nearly enough. I note that most of the citations come from Sutton's claims against Charles Darwin. The reportage is about Darwin's claims, not Sutton. I read Made to Stick. I know you can garner a lot of attention by claiming something like that. Sutton isn't the first academic to do so, and those that do are usually wrong. Nobody is writing about Sutton and he's the subject. As for C8, there's no evidence that the Internet Journal of Criminology which Sutton founded is "a major well-established academic journal in their subject area". Note the personal details about Sutton are unsourced, proving that the page is being used for advertisement. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was hesitant to vote when it was initially nominated. However, I failed to find reliable sources discussing the subject as a conspiracy theorist, while much of the article is dedicated to these pseudo-debunking claims (which can be considered to be in the realm conspiracy theories). If those sources are lacking, this indicates a notability issue. —Paleo Neonate – 21:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - He is cited - [[11]] (h-index of 13, 926 citations). And he does hold a senior academic position (all be it at possibly not the best institution). I'm holding off voting as I'm not sure regarding expected h-index in criminology (13 would pass in some fields, some not) - I have however listed this as the Academics and educators delsorting - so some of the regulars there will chime in.Icewhiz (talk) 12:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm convinced by his Spinach debunk coverage, regardless of his merits of PROF. [12].Icewhiz (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Whether his views on Darwin are right or wrong is a matter that should be judged by academic peers, not by WP editors. The origins of Darwin's ideas are a matter of legitimate academic debate. Quite apart from that, "Reader" is a senior post in a British university, one level below Professor, so that an article would probably be appropriate even if he had written nothing about Darwin. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:32, 17 September 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.