Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Basalla

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The result was keep — nomination withdrawn and no !votes to delete. XOR'easter (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

George Basalla

[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)

There is no evidence that Basalla passes any academic notability guidelines. I do not see evidence of him being cited enough or other signs of impact that would allow him to pass guidelines 1, and no other guidelines does he even come close. The sourcing is no where near meeting GNG. Almost all the sources are dead. The exceptions are good reads, which is not a reliable source, the US census, which is in some ways not reliable and more to the point a primary source that seeks to record information on all residents of the US, not at all something showing notability. Then we have the subject's own website. A search for more resources came up with some passing mentions in various articles on JSTOR, but no actual sustained coverage, especially not in any meaningful way of him. We just do not have sources to show he is notable, and I can not see how he really passes any of the notability prongs for academics. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NACADEMIC#1 His seminal work is reviewed here on JSTOR and Proquest University of Chicago Press. Lightburst (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many citations on single author works and first author ones. Plus, there are the reviews mentioned above. Passes WP:NPROF. At least 2652 citations on "The evolution of technology" and at least 993 on "The spread of western science". Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 21:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both per WP:PROF#C1 and his heavy citations on Google scholar as above and per WP:AUTHOR and the many reviews of his books that I've just added to his article. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw With the added sources I am now convinced we have enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:06, 13 October 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.