Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Verano

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. MBisanz ^talk 21:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Verano

Doesn't seem to meet the notability requirements. His name does get a mention in the BBC news article that is linked on the page: [1], but I don't think it's enough. Akamad (talk) 08:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he was THE professor of anthroplogy, OK, but A professor implies the US meaning of 'professor' to mean 'teacher'. Only cited work is as a co-editor; hardly impressive. Delete Emeraude (talk) 14:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability. References do not provide evidence of such. Bongo matic 17:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
very weak keep Full professors at major research universities are generally notable, even in the US sense. Toulane is a research university, but whether it is of sufficient distinction in the subject for all of its full professors to be notable is not all that clear to me. And in any case from his web page, he's an associate professor, which are sometimes notable, sometimes not. We need to look at the publications to see whether he is recognized as an authority in his field. I see 19 papers and one major book. Unfortunately anthropology is covered inadequately by both Web of Science and Scopus, so we need to use the incomplete and erratic Google Scholar to see the impact. His book Disease and demography in the Americas published by Smithsonian Institute press, is cited by 52 works there. His articles, between 3 and 11 times each. This subject is not my specialty, so I cannot tell how important it is; the field is however very specialized--Andean paleopathology, and South American academic sources are generally not covered well by Google. Borderline in the absence of further information. Another book or two in a few years, and it would be a much clearer keep. DGG (talk) 05:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is well written and encyclopedic. Subject has some notability. No reason not to include it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Coverage in NY Times, BBC News, National Geographic, etc., argues for a pass of WP:BIO and possibly of WP:PROF #7. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:BIO with enough media coverage that is “reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.” The media hits uncovered by David Eppstein mention him prominently. For example, the NY Times article states that: “The most newsworthy revisionist finding emerged from the study of human bones by John Verano, an expert at Tulane University.”--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The coverage noted by David Eppstein is incidental: the news stories are about the subjects of Verano's research, not about Verano himself. As such, he appears to fail notability guidelines. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 20:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. For almost all academics, the coverage we have is less about them and more about their research; the mismatch between the sort of celebrity coverage described in WP:BIO and the typical coverage of even the most notable academics is exactly why we have the separate guideline WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's a physical anthropologist, which seems to have lower citation rates than other areas of anthropology. In addition to the arguments above, "John Verano" OR "John W. Verano" gets 243 gbooks hits, so he seems pretty well known. John Z (talk) 11:13, 10 November 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.