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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Halleran[edit]

Michael Halleran (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)

I am proposing this page for deletion at the request of the subject, for privacy/safety concerns. According to WP:BIODEL, "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete." In addition, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE also says "Where the subject of a BLP has requested deletion, the deletion policy says: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete."

Under these two policy headings, I believe this is an appropriate request for deletion. If anyone feels that it's necessary to contact the subject of this page, I can put you in touch. Thank you. Bookgrrl (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here seems to be that the NOM has already stated on the talkpage that the subject is notable as per WP:NACADEMICS. On that, I think the NOM is clearly wrong and the subject is not notable (not a full Professor, does not have a lot of well-cited references etc). So leaving aside that claim, the question is whether he could be considered to be notable as per WP:GNG. It seems to me to be unlikely, and I can't find good secondary sources to indicate notability. So I think, particularly given the subject has asked for it to be deleted, there is good reason to delete. JMWt (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I declined this for speedy deletion because WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE only provides provisions for discussions to be closed as delete at the request of the article subject, not for speedy deletions under WP:CSD. That being said, I do think this individual does meet our notability guidelines but also falls under the category of "relatively unknown, non-public figures". Mkdw^talk 22:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - On the edge of weak delete/keep, but WP:BIODEL pushes me to the delete side. Perhaps it would be appropriate to use some of the content to start an article about his book, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Freemasonry in the American Civil War, which looks like there may be notable. If that were the case, a redirect would be appropriate from the bio title, of course. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong book. That was written by Steven Pinker. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Good point. Updated the wikilink to use the whole title. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per BIODEL. No need to have a lasting judgment on Notability at this point. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2015 (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.