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 20:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Hayward[edit]

Joel Hayward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This early/mid career academic is WP:SINGLEEVENT for the controversy outlined thoroughly in https://web.archive.org/web/20160303181242/http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/hayward/report.PDF (and in appalling detail in the local popular press at the time). The whole article is built around an autobiography and accepts contested facts from the autobiography as gospel. Many broken links. My attempts to trim the areas that I know about (and I'll admit there are some sources in languages I don't speak) have been reverted. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Enough reviews of enough different books to pass WP:AUTHOR, completely unrelated to any single-event controversy. The article should not cover up his history as a Holocaust denier as it now does, of course, but being a Holocaust denier doesn't prevent being notable in other ways. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the same basis as David Eppstein. The article could use a good solid prune to get to the point among other changes but AfD is not cleanup. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or at least WP:TNT. This BLP is one of the most tendentious I have seen on Wikipedia. It contains bombastic bloat, unsourced claims, commercial spam and seems to be used as a battleground for agendas both for and against the subject. I suggest that contributors to this AFD check how many of the claims made in the BLP can be verified by the sources given. A careful look at the subject's GS profile [1] raises doubts that the number of citations claimed there is realistic. There should be no place in Wikipedia for a BLP like this. The best I can suggest is delete without prejudice to recreating a WP:TNTed stub. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. a strong keep at that. There are certainly enough third-party sources to establish notability. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 09:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  What sources are those? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep. Has cleared the notability threshold by some margin. Schwede66 17:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly notable per WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. And that's all we're here to discuss. Describing a 55-year-old full professor as an "early/mid career academic" is frankly laughable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but prune -- Elements of this wreak of autobiography (which WP discourages). He appears to be a professor in the Commonwealth sense, which would make him notable, and he clearly has enough publications for that. However, I would prefer to see less detail about his training and work in progress. That level of detail belongs (if anywhere) on a personal webpage at his university or alma mater. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:33, 27 December 2019 (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.