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. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 09:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Sparke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Most sources here are written by the subject, as indeed is part of this article as the subject appears to have been a significant contributor. With multiple issues throughout the article, including sourcing, citations and excessive detail, the main one is that the subject does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. That, along with COI... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, United States of America, and California. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per NACADEMIC-C1, given strong citation record. --Mvqr (talk) 10:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because there are a few citations to RS. The article needs a massive rewrite, though, because it's mostly a glowing summary of Sparke's work rather than information on the individual. Bordering on promotional. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The RS pieces are authoured by Sparke, they're not third party/editorial commentary on his enduring impact on his discipline... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As well as the case for WP:PROF#C1 already discussed above, he has enough published book reviews of his two books to pass WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:04, 9 July 2023 (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.