Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thom Brooks (2nd nomination)

Thom Brooks

This article was deleted on 12 October after a brief AfD discussion: see here. A substantially identical article was created by User:Krishnaji on 14 Oct. I nominated it for speedy deletion as a recreation of deleted material on 15 Oct. On 16 Oct, the speedy tag was removed by an anon (operating from an IP registered to Newcastle University, where the subject of the article works), with the edit summary ‘Merged pages’. Neither Krishnaji nor the anon have responded to queries on their talk pages, so I’m relisting. The reason for deletion hasn’t changed: Brooks is still a non-notable academic who fails WP:PROF. Sam Clark 17:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominate the subject's books:

None are particularly notable, and the articles are adverts with text taken from publishers' blurbs. Sam Clark 19:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and protect to prevent recreation (as nominator). Sam Clark 17:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure - seems a respected academic, but probably not notable in that field. I will leave others to judge. However if he is deleted, so should be the entries on his books: Rousseau and Law, The Legacy of John Rawls and Locke and Law. Perhaps they should go even if he stays. Emeraude 19:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hadn't spotted the books, but they should certainly go (too). I've added them to the nom. Oh, and I've just noticed that all three were created by User:Krishnaji again. I've let him/her know about this discussion. Sam Clark 19:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry to see that Sam Clark finds Brooks not notable. I strongly disagree. The publications record itself is of some significance: not too many have done so much in such a short period of time. I hope Wikipedia reconsiders.
keep guy and merge books/delete books. he seems to have one with a notable press. --Buridan 01:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't know much about American academics, so no vote. But I would like to point out that User:Krishnaji has been adding Thom Brooks' books as references/sources/further reading in many articles which don't use any information from these books[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. Even if this person is notable for Wikipedia, I think these kinds of edits are akin to external links spamming. utcursch | talk 04:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]