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. J04n( talk page) 15:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC) reply

John F. Conway (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

No indication that this individual passes WP:PROF. The only notability asserted is that he has held posts on various school boards and once ran for the leadership of a political party but received only 44 votes. Bueller 007 ( talk) 16:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Baby miss fortune} 16:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Baby miss fortune} 16:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Baby miss fortune} 16:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Baby miss fortune} 16:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Baby miss fortune} 16:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete considering that one apparence in a pro football game, even for a few minutes makes one notable, I would like to say keep. However he does not meet the notability guidelines for academics, because three books alone is not enough for that. He also does not meet the notability guidelines for politicians, in fact he is laughably unnotable for such. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Nothing stated in the article gives him an automatic pass of any subject-specific inclusion standard, and the sourcing isn't getting him over WP:GNG. Bearcat ( talk) 06:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete. I replaced the catalog entry sourcing his books with four published academic book reviews. But with two of his books only garnering one review each, it seems a little slight for WP:AUTHOR. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:00, 30 December 2017 (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.