Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Fawell: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Xxanthippe (talk | contribs) d |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
*<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators|list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Delsort--></small><small>—[[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 05:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)</small> |
*<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators|list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Delsort--></small><small>—[[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 05:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)</small> |
||
*'''Delete'''. GS cites are 3, 3, 2, 2. That seems to be all. Not remotely enough cites to pass [[WP:Prof]] (minimum numbers required are usually around 500), particularly for somebody who works in the area of pop culture. [[User:Xxanthippe|Xxanthippe]] ([[User talk:Xxanthippe|talk]]) 22:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC). |
*'''Delete'''. GS cites are 3, 3, 2, 2. That seems to be all. Not remotely enough cites to pass [[WP:Prof]] (minimum numbers required are usually around 500), particularly for somebody who works in the area of pop culture. [[User:Xxanthippe|Xxanthippe]] ([[User talk:Xxanthippe|talk]]) 22:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC). |
||
*'''Weak Keep''' Three academic books is enough for notability . GScholar counts do not work in the humanities,, at least for recent works, where references are very slow in coming. Better to judge on the basis of the views of the referees for the publishing houses., Weak keep only, because they are not the very major publishers. His books are in 207, 329, and 125 WorldCat libraries, which is another good way of judging importance. Needs a check for reviews of them, which would show notability as an author regardless of wp:prof. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 04:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 04:28, 7 January 2010
- John Fawell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This appears to be a run-of-the-mill professor. I can't find any significant impact that he has made in his field, nor can I find significant mentions of him in reliable, third-party sources. He has won an award, the Peyton Richter award, but that appears to be handed out by his college and not of the national/international scope required by WP:PROF. ThemFromSpace 04:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 05:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. GS cites are 3, 3, 2, 2. That seems to be all. Not remotely enough cites to pass WP:Prof (minimum numbers required are usually around 500), particularly for somebody who works in the area of pop culture. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC).
- Weak Keep Three academic books is enough for notability . GScholar counts do not work in the humanities,, at least for recent works, where references are very slow in coming. Better to judge on the basis of the views of the referees for the publishing houses., Weak keep only, because they are not the very major publishers. His books are in 207, 329, and 125 WorldCat libraries, which is another good way of judging importance. Needs a check for reviews of them, which would show notability as an author regardless of wp:prof. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)