Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert N. Zeitlin: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 13:21, 3 December 2009

Robert N. Zeitlin

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

Speedy declined. No external sources in article, can't find coverage outside of research area in reliable sources Cynof Gavuf 12:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's an emeritus professor at a proper university, which satisfies WP:ACADEMIC - The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society. The article needs major surgery, of course. andy (talk) 13:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Major highest level" refers to presidents and chancellors of universities, not just retired faculty. So he clearly does not satisfy this criterion of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to re-creating in proper form. This is not an article, it is an excerpt from a resume. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
changing to Keep. Article is now a proper stub. Subject seems sufficiently notable. Thanks to whoever did the work. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's now an article. Do you change your mind about your vote? --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 06:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete - he's not a cartoon, doesn't belong. Less work to rewrite it than to discuss it, but so easy to nominate for deletion. Then who comes back and recreates it? He's an academic, well-known, not a video game character. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 05:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I for one am tired of all the trivia on Wikipedia. This article was a mess but now is a proper stub. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's time to close this one. The nominator's assertions are either not criteria for deletion or false; the professor appears to be, from google searches, a fairly well-known archaeologist. The article needs sourced. Maybe if there were fewer editors discussing this, someone could find time to source the article. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't see any reason to close this early, as notability has not been clearly established. The title of Professor Emeritus simply means that the subject continues to do some teaching and/or research after retirement - it is not "a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post". Phil Bridger (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, professor is, and to be a professor emeritus, you have to be a professor first. Notability must be asserted, and it is, as he is a well known Mesoamerican archaeologist. If he were from a better known university this debate would probably not be happening. Look at a google search on him. The article just needs references. But, I'm too busy fighting to keep the article right now to be able to spend any time referencing it. This is a waste of good editing time. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see how this one passes PROF. Using GS, I see an h-index of 6, with the highest cited at 19. No other indication of notability that I can see. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Measures of citability such as H-index, G-index, etc, may be used as a rough guide in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied, but they should be approached with considerable caution since their validity is not, at present, widely accepted, and since they depend substantially on the source indices used." So, post a link to your h-index search and assert its validity. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 08:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of evidence that he passes WP:PROF. The citation record isn't strong enough to convince me that he passes criterion #1 of WP:PROF and I don't see anything else. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an act of futility if you're not a character from some tv show no scientist have ever heard of. He's a leading American expert in mesoamerica, yet his article will be deleted. Why? Because of his h-index, which Nomoskedasticity hasn't even linked to, or established the validity of? A single criterion for to delete a researcher by a group of editors who don't know or care about Mesoamerican archaeology. This is why experts leave wikipedia: they're not cartoons, or anime, so they're not wanted. I gotta quit, too. This is absurd. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The h-index is not a reason for deleting. It could be a reason for keeping, if it were large enough to show evidence that his expertise has had some impact, but it isn't. The reason for deleting is that there is no clear reason to keep. "He's a leading expert" needs to be justified somehow; without evidence it's not much help. Here's my evidence: I searched Google scholar for "mesoamerica" and his name didn't appear in the first 100 hits, so I'm not at all convinced that he really is a leading expert in the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I searched google scholar for mesoamerica trade and he was a reference in 4 of the first 20 resources (I only checked 6 of the first 20). I could find extremely notable scientists who don't get hits in the first 100 of the broadest possible search you can enter for him. He's an expert in his field, not in the entire aspect of Mesoamerica which includes not just archeology, but geology, history, settlement, botany. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not make it on GS cites so delete unless other evidence emerges. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

did you by any chance look at the GS results, [1]? I see about 80 items, including references to him. And since he was born in 1935, so GS will not even cover most of his career. some things Google S does, and some things it does not cover. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The citability is not high, and there is no evidence in the record of passing any other criteria of WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability given at all. NBeale (talk) 23:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Google search referred to above shows him the author of a standard review in one of the Cambridge Histories, "The Paleoindian and Archaic Cultures of Mesoamerica" in The Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of the Americas, Volume 2 Part 1 (Mesoamerica) (2000) by Robert N. Zeitlin and Judith Francis Zeitlin. Digital Object Identifier (DOI) 10.1017/CHOL9780521351652.003. A search in WorldCat shows at least 5 books. Including the GS search, that's enough to show he was regarded as an authority in his subject. Emeritus Professor is only rarely given to other than full professors; Brandeis is a moderately important research university. I am considerably more willing to accept their standards for who is notable in the academic world than that of the editors here. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt the folks at Brandeis who decided to make him emeritus professor had notability on their minds. 160.39.212.108 (talk) 13:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 * '''Delete''' no evidence of notability given at all. [[User:NBeale|NBeale]] ([[User talk:NBeale|talk]]) 23:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 *'''Keep'''  The Google search referred to above shows him the author of a standard review in one of the Cambridge Histories, "The Paleoindian and Archaic Cultures of Mesoamerica" in  The Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of the Americas,  Volume 2 Part 1 (Mesoamerica) (2000) by Robert N. Zeitlin and Judith Francis Zeitlin. Digital Object Identifier (DOI) 10.1017/CHOL9780521351652.003. A search in WorldCat  shows at least 5 books. Including the GS search, that's enough to show he was regarded as an authority in his subject. Emeritus Professor is only rarely given to other than full professors; Brandeis is a moderately important research university. I am considerably more willing to accept their standards for who is notable in the academic world than that of the editors here.   '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 03:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
+**I doubt the folks at Brandeis who decided to make him emeritus professor had notability on their minds.  [[Special:Contributions/160.39.212.108|160.39.212.108]] ([[User talk:160.39.212.108|talk]]) 13:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)