Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Heartfield

James Heartfield

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/James Heartfield

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

James Heartfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The subject of the page does not meet the notability criteria for academics as described in these guidelines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)

The subject was an unsuccessful candidate for an election. The subject of the page does not meet the notability criteria for politicians as described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians_and_judges — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maud.Clowd (talk • contribs) 09:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• He may, however, meet the requirements of an author. He's published quite a lot of books, which sit somewhere in between academic and popular, making it hard to know exactly what standards to use. However, I note that his book "The British and Foreign Anti Slavery Society" has been subject to a number of independent reviews [1][2] Elemimele (talk) 09:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Elemimele: I hadn't considered that his notability might come from him being an author. However, the reviews you reference are published in academic journals. I think academic books in history will usually have independent book reviews. So I'm not sure this makes the author notable. Perhaps a historian could confirm or deny this. Maud.Clowd (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I haven't the foggiest idea! I know we're encouraged to use common sense about academic books that may have smaller print-runs and appeal to a narrower range of people (i.e. a truly academic book that got reviewed twice in academic journals would have been one that made an exceptional impact; most fade into literature without mention!), but my impression is that these are supposed to appeal more widely, in which case you're completely right. I have no strong feelings either way. Elemimele (talk) 12:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Heartfield01 (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• keep with a number of reviews including [3] [4] [5] and the ones found by @Elemimele: he passes WP:NAUTHOR. @Maud.Clowd: Generally academic reviews are counted towards notability per WP:NAUTHOR. I would fail to see how reviews in academic journals are less important than other reviews, I would rather suggest that they are held to a higher standard and assess scholarly contribution. In general as long as the venue in which the review appears is reliable, we can use it -- there are many niche genres outside academia where authors become notable by being reviewed in a specialized journal (eg science fiction etc). Given that multiple books of his have multiple reviews, this also means WP:BLP1E doesnt apply here but this shows a consistent streak of recognized scholarship. --hroest 16:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)