Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernest R. House

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest R. House

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

Does not appear to pass WP:NACADEMIC. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think he's good for PROF based on citation counts (numerous publications cited >100 times). EricEnfermero (Talk) 18:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He passes WP:PROF#C1 for heavily cited works (including 1000 in Google Scholar for his book "Evaluating with validity") and plausibly #C2 for the lifetime achievement award. It's also not hard to find multiple published reviews for his books, so he passes WP:AUTHOR as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure. The "keep" people make good points, but he doesn't appear to be covered in multiple published reliable sources that are independent of the subject, which is the definition of Notability and the requirement for a subject to have a stand-alone article. I know "unsure" isn't the best answer, but it's what I got. If we're going to adhere to Wikipedia's basic Notability standard, then at the very least the article should remain up with a Notability maintenance template at the top. --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are describing the definition of notability according to one particular notability guideline, WP:GNG. For academics, we have a different guideline, WP:PROF, that uses different standards and is independent of GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable - my mistake. If he meets the WP:PROF criteria, I would say keep. Thanks for pointing this out! --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete other criteria stand in addition to GNG, so we do not over include some subjects, they do not trump it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- JPL, you have been told over and over that WP:PROF is independent of WP:GNG. Why do you persist in applying the wrong criteria instead of working to change the guidelines to be more like the way you keep pretending inaccurately that they are? In any case, the in-depth published reviews of his books are also enough for GNG (it's a low bar, for book-publishing academics). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per EricEnfermero and David Eppstein. It is list-heavy and does need prosification, but as the saying goes, AfD is not cleanup. XOR'easter (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have no objections to keeping it if the person is notable. My initial reading of the article was that it did not make any sort of claim of notability. If WP:NACADEMIC criterion 1 is met (and this criterion could be made clearer to help non-specialist readers like myself), the article should summarize the person's influence and contributions. That is cleanup, not AfD, as noted, however. As a start, maybe one of the commenters here could link to the professor's citations and reviews in a section on the talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Though the subject doesn't have a Google Scholar profile, I posted the URL to a GS search of the subject's name to the article talk page a few days ago (then forgot to come back here and let anyone know). EricEnfermero (Talk) 20:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I cut out a lot of the more egregiously cv-like material and added reviews of his books. But the article could still use more work, so I didn't remove the {{Like resume}} tag. (However, AfD is not for cleanup.) —David Eppstein (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep as WP:AUTHOR. Wrote multiple books that are widely held:
- Evaluating with validity by Ernest R House -- 700 libraries
- Schools for sale : why free market policies won't improve America's schools, and what will by Ernest R House -- 633 libraries worldwide
- Jesse Jackson & the politics of charisma : the rise and fall of the PUSH/Excel program by Ernest R House -- 593 libraries. Etc.

Reviews are certain to be available. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2017 (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.