Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Pemberton (anthropologist)

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 as meeting WP:N. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Pemberton (anthropologist)

May or may not be notable - sent to AFD. Rschen7754 (T C) 21:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is not clear if this is the location to take issue with the AFd or the DRV - when the only text found so far is sent to Afd and this is it? very odd and circular for a concerned editor - and for a comment 'may nor may not be notable' is patently absurd if you dont mind my saying so in good faith Satu Suro 02:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further - Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 25 - is a clear indication of the lack of understanding of the individuals considerable contribution to debate in the Indonesian cultural studies - which has absotutely nothing to do with the issues that the conversation held there(google is not the place for the material on the significance of many subjects and is not a final arbiter in many subjects - it is culturally skewed for a start) (at the deletion review) showed any semblance of understanding or even considering possibly asking someone from the Indonesian project about. Satu Suro 02:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but the "lack of understanding of the individual's considerable contribution" is not surprising since the article at that point in time didn't make reference to those contributions. Google is certainly not the place to find all sorts of useful references for notable people, things, and ideas. However, looking there shows sufficient good faith in attempting to rescue an article that doesn't even bother to make the claim of notability in the first place. Your edits and comments convinced me, not the generic shell that was there before. Bongomatic (talk) 06:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - in view of the individuals role in Javanese studies - I consider the article undeletable - still finding more relevent RS which I know exist Satu Suro 03:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The recent edits to this article are starting to show the notability of the subject (though they could use amplification). Bongomatic (talk) 06:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 04:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Satu Suro 05:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At the very least time should be allowed to expand this article. List of publications implies notability. Davidelit (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete A list of a few publication does not imply notability, just enough to keep it from speedy and send it for discussion--and that was what the deletion review was about. This is the discussion. Actual notability for a scholar depends upon the number and importance of the publications. He has one book only (with two short reviews), 2 peer-reviewed articles, and 2 or 3 essays. Unless the book is very important indeed, that's not enough for notability per WP:PROF, or more generally as an author. He is still an Associate Professor, and as his career develops further he might become notable. As a personal opinion, Columbia may have given him tenure on the grounds of futrue possibilities, but we have no way of judging that. DGG (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His work has not received enough attention to satisfy WP:PROF. There would be thousands of assistant professors we could add here if his record were sufficient. Lack of citations to books/articles is also a problem here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment - So if I get this right - the fact that most USA academics wouldnt even know where Java the country is - and they havent actually done what Pemberton has done - then along comes the criteria and you can bump an article out - just because of the way you read the N criteria? something stinks - there might be no more than living 10 academics in the world who have done what he has done - and you are going by criteria that have nothing to do whatsoever with the Javanese context? There is a specific project and subject here that argues for the retention of the article and gives him a specific category - regardless of the problem of the mass of thousands of USA academics who probably want to do a self bio - notability here is specifically about the context of the specific book and when it was done - I think that does not allow for a precedent of flood of non entity academics to have their bios in - this is specifically to do with an era in Indonesia where Keeler, Pemberton, Woodward and Florida were doing something which has not been done before and not since - if indeed I have to deal with geographically challenged globalistic rationale - do I have to start questioning the validity of Afd in the same way Cfd is being seriously questioned for utterly disruptive pointless global context. The book and the author were important at the time for very specific historical reasons - and regardless of how easy it is to swipe it in terms that deny the Indonesian context. Notability in this case is quite different from that discussed above - it is to do with the Indonesian experience, and yes just one book - but very specifically the context makes it unique - and for that reason notable. Satu Suro 00:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, per DGG. It may be that SatuSuro is correct and the book of Pemberton was/is very important, but I'd like to see some explicit evidence of that (e.g. some reviewers or other researchers saying so). Nsk92 (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment "On the subject of Java" has been cited 182 times according to Google Scholar, which seems a lot, but then consider that three false positives (other "J Pemberton"s) in that same search have been cited 243, 198, 193 times... and the following three false positives have 153, 150, and 141 ciations... Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond some uncited assertions in the article and outright rhetoric here, we currently have little to work with. I mean it is the bio of an American academic and his subject is not that exotic. If his results are important, then it should be possible to add some sources saying so. Meanwhile the Indonesia project might want to consider to actually integrate his results into the 'pedia which also gives some recognition to a scientist. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some answers - I do have some refs but will not be able to trace then before the end of what is the usual Afd time - I personally did not actually start this art and would not have predicated the article on being an american academic after seeing most of the comments above - and am now caught out as always by those who assume it is all online - that is not the case. If someone actually closes this in the negative - all of the article - will go to a new article at some later stage loosely on anthropologists and historians in Java and issues brought up here will be totally redundant or irrelevent, hopefully - Satu Suro 10:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep a degree of notability is apparent --Dreamspy (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. IMO notable. --Klein zach 05:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I haven't read the earlier versions of this article, but I can't see any problem with using the version at this time as the starting point for a potentially strong article. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per barely meeting WP:GNG. MuZemike (talk) 06:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I continue to think the assertions of importance in the text of the article are merely promotional language. DGG (talk) 22:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the skepticism - I cannot gain access to the material that I need within the space of time allowed for afd's and as I didnt start it I would have not made the assumption that any american academics are inherently notable in the first place. Javanese history and culture and society are always subsumed at the best of times (that is another article too) so skepticism is probably as sound as knowledge of the subject. The whole reason for wanting to even spend a second's effort on any of them - keeler, florida, woodward, pemberton (and their mates from australia - Cribb, Lucas and others) is for the very reason there seems to be doubts as to their N - their work was conducted in new order Indonesian when outside researchers were given a hard time by new order bureaucracy (ask me it took me 3 years to get permission to get into the country) and their strategies to either avoid or cope with the new order/suharto era when writing up their Phd fieldwork was exemplified by pemberton's clever critique of the new order in context of something that had happened in the 1700's - but hey I am not gonna sweat over all this if necessary the separate article will solve the issues If I have to at some stage in the future - rhetoric, assertions of importance - it will all out if necessary in an article about those who had to cope with new order bureaucracy in the 80's and 90's - a bit like N issues in wikipedia (sic) - pity it will take me physically about a month to find the refs - cheers Satu Suro 00:22, 1 October 2008 (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.