Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Henry Wittebols

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Henry Wittebols

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Academic but not the holder of a named chair; two routine academic publications with routine academic reviews in fairly obscure (?) journals. If this is acceptable per our notability guidelines then surely we should have a bio for every person holding professor status, all of whom will have had something published? Sitush (talk) 04:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sitush (talk) 04:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nb: previously PRODed with the rational NN professor, fails the GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. Only sources out there namedrops, and certainly nothing providing significant coverage to the subject. Notability tagged for over a decade. Created (for what it's worth) by a legendarily disruptive editor who's been indeffed for his antics. - Sitush (talk) 04:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am not seeing the evidence of prominence within his field that would be required for WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR. As the nom notes, having an academic book reviewed in an academic journal is not, by itself, evidence of substantial scholarly impact. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck because I didn't see the Cengage encyclopedia entry that's now been added. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think multiple books each with multiple independent in-depth published reviews, and an in-depth entry detailing his career at the Cengage encyclopedia, is enough for both WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. We should be basing deletion decisions on this sort of topic on the existence of adequate sourcing, not on our own uninformed personal judgements of how routine or non-routine we think his career has been. (As for "substantial scholarly impact": that's wording from WP:PROF#C1, which is focused more on fields where journal publishing and citation counts are important; it doesn't work well for book fields.) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

not on our own uninformed personal judgements of how routine or non-routine we think his career has been - really? - Sitush (talk) 06:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- My own judgement in this specialization is certainly not well informed. Do you mean to tell me I should use that instead of our source-based notability guidelines? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wouldn't presume to tell you anything. What I am doing is questioning your own presumptions of others. Eg: this, this, this and this should suggest to you that I do consider things in the round. I could give plenty of fairly recent examples where I have commented without !voting etc, and where I have listed upwards of a dozen BEFORE checks. You need to re-examine AGF, I think. - Sitush (talk) 07:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was the deprodder, and I added (weakly) sufficient reviews at the time. David Eppstein has found more reviews. 5 reviews of one book and 2 of the other are a reasonable pass of WP:NAUTHOR. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He might be notable as an academic and author. I suggest to check more his academic records--Iockyrice (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As people have questioned some of the sources without committing themselves, I think a relist is preferable
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per most of the comments above. I have no understanding of why so many editors believe that academics should not be covered to the extent we cover wrestlers, lingerie models, and professional Super Smash Bros. players. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, has the bare minimum to pass WP:AUTHOR criterion 1, with two works being somewhat notable, with some reviews and citations. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 02:19, 13 September 2020 (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.