Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terence DuQuesne

Terence DuQuesne

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

Contested PROD. reason was "Fails WP:PROF, WP:BIO. Only sources are primary sources" Fiddle Faddle 17:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion that this article be deleted is absurd; it easily meets all the relevant criteria. I suggest the person who proposed its deletion does his homework.

A Baron — Preceding unsigned comment added by VennerRoad (talk • contribs) 18:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The references are a web page of a company started by the subject (and for which the sole product line is one book written by the subject) and a non-authoritative blog. Does not appear to meet WP:BIO.--Rpclod (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, did I miss something? Check out The Supreme Council For Antiquities at http://www.sca-egypt.org/

and also the National Gallery Of Art http://www.nga.gov/content/ngaweb/exhibitions/2002/egypt.html DuQuesne made significant contributions in his field, Egyptology. If you don't know what that word means, look it up in a real encyclopaedia.

A Baron VennerRoad (talk) 23:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A search of the Supreme Council for Antiquities turned up nothing, and a contribution mention at the NGA isn't enough. Is that all you can find that meets WP:GNG? Dougweller (talk) 12:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another citation, by an Egyptian academic

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=N5maPgD4BnYC&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=%22Terence+DuQuesne%22+-wikipedia&source=bl&ots=xsqTiONScB&sig=vcZacle-XnZf6uYQf61veaqs2zE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=R4zeU6TuL8ew7Aae64CoCw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22Terence%20DuQuesne%22%20-wikipedia&f=false

A Baron — Preceding unsigned comment added by VennerRoad (talk • contribs) 19:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC) Citations from Google Books[reply]

https://www.google.co.uk/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Terence+DuQuesne%22&gws_rd=ssl

A Baron VennerRoad (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody needs to learn how to use Google: http://www.isbns.net/isbn/9789774372315

A Baron VennerRoad (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I came to this conclusion after noting that despite VennerRoad trying what I assume is their best, nothing has been found to show notability per our criteria at WP:NACADEMICS or WP:BASIC. For instance, no "significant coverage in multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Publications or brief mentions aren't enough. Dougweller (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I am well aware of what Egyptology is (as is Dougweller). My field of interest is Egyptian religion, which I research in great detail, so I have come across DuQuesne's name several times. His work on jackal deities was certainly valuable and has been cited for that reason (e.g. in this article). But he seems to have worked independently, to the extent of publishing his own work, so he is unlikely to fit the notability criteria for academics that depend on holding influential posts. As for the first criterion, "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources", DuQuesne's discipline would be Egyptology, not any specialized subject within it. DuQuesne's Egyptological specialty, jackal deities, was quite narrow. Although I'm sure he knew more about the subject than anybody else, and I wish he had been able to complete the later volumes of his magnum opus on the subject, it's not the sort of thing that gains great recognition even within Egyptology. There are many other scholars whom I have seen cited more often than DuQuesne but probably don't meet that criterion either. (Incidentally, the only living scholars of Egyptian religion who I am absolutely certain would meet the first criterion are Erik Hornung and Jan Assmann, who have greatly shaped current thinking about Egyptian theology and the Egyptian worldview more generally and are almost invariably mentioned in current surveys of the religion. It's a pretty high bar.) A. Parrot (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly your low opinion of the man and his work is not shared by the leading UK institutions. On his death he bequeathed his papers to the Griffith Institute. This august museum sent two full professors to his Norbury Crescent home who spent two days there conducting an inventory and taking what they wanted. These papers have now gone to 3 institutions.

If you want to delete a non-entity, I suggest you start with Satpal Ram.

I rest my case

A Baron VennerRoad (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a "low opinion" of DuQuesne; I admire his dedication to his chosen specialty and wish he could have completed his work. Aside from that, he sounds like an interesting man—but my opinion of him is irrelevant. You seem to misunderstand Wikipedia's notability criteria, which are not based on the subject's value to society. Instead, they are based on how many sources, independent of the subject, have covered the subject in enough depth to write an article based on them. (Perhaps the best explanation of the reasoning behind the notability criteria is this essay by an experienced Wikipedian.) For academics, notability requires a sign that the academic was one of the leading figures in his or her field. Obviously the Griffith Institute regarded DuQuesne's papers as valuable resources for research, but that does not mean he was a highly influential figure in the field, however productive he may have been.

If you want me to reverse my decision, point me to sources that describe DuQuesne in depth. You haven't provided much on this page, and all I've found by myself is an obituary on the website for Darengo Publishing (his own press) and another on a blog. In other Wikipedia deletion discussions, editors have questioned whether an obituary in the New York Times is enough to make a person notable when other sources are absent. Considering that, I don't think the sources I've seen on DuQuesne are nearly sufficient. A. Parrot (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.griffith.ox.ac.uk/duquesne-papers/ VennerRoad (talk) 10:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That still fails to show any in depth discussion, etc. Dougweller (talk) 12:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent 58 years arguing with morons; I'm not prepared to waste another minute arguing with them on this site. These people http://wikipediabias.com/ have you summed up to a tee. I should have realised that with all the edits and corrections I've had deleted over the years. Do what you want, delete the whole site. I couldn't give a toss. Asshole. A Baron