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 . Michig ( talk) 08:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Michael Hatt

Michael Hatt (  | 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 BLP is a stub that makes no claims to the subject's notability through prose or sourcing. It simply states where the subject received his education, that he works as a professor, and that he has published non-notable academic works. The article contains only two references, both of which are WP:PRIMARY sources. After carrying out searches on both Google and Google Scholar, I found zero WP:SECONDARY coverage that even mentions this subject; all hits are things like his own faculty pages and his own published works. Basically, fails WP:GNG. Armadillopteryx ^talk 21:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Six new sources have now been added to the article. Of those, one does not mention the subject, and the other five [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] are all links to works authored or edited by the subject, despite the way some are attributed in the ref section. Those five sources would be fine to list in the Selected works section, but they cannot be used to establish notability because they are WP:PRIMARY. In order for the subject to pass WP:GNG/ WP:NPROF, secondary sourcing is needed. I have done some more Googling but still cannot find any. Armadillopteryx ^talk 06:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• I would be inclined to keep, based on the combination of WP:PROF & WP:AUTHOR. The books are published by university presses and reasonable widely held. I don't think that the encyclopedia would be improved by removing this article. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I found one review of his co-authored art history text, and the article already had three reviews of an edited volume by him and two other editors. I could find no reviews of his Yale Collection book. I think for WP:AUTHOR we need multiple authored (not edited) books with multiple reviews each, so this is not enough. And his art history book is well cited, but that's also not enough by itself to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep The article has been expanded since nomination and now includes many reviews of his work so that he easily meets the GNG guideline. In particular, the curated sculpture exhibition seems significant and was widely reviewed. Regarding reviews of the 2019 book, I think it is a little early as it was only recently published. They will surely appear soon. Philafrenzy ( talk) 09:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep Looking at at the article's history, much has been expanded and referenced since nominated for deletion. Agree with remarks by User:K.e.coffman and User:Philafrenzy. Whispyhistory ( talk) 05:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep (changed from above) since I didn't take into account the exhibit reviews. I agree that the 2019 book is too soon to expect reviews, so the lack of reviews yet is not a problem. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:21, 1 November 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.