Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr Nicholas James

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 delete. ✗plicit 14:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Nicholas James[edit]

[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)

Unable to find evidence that he meets WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NPROF or any other notability criterion. He has notable family members, so redirect is an option. (t · c) buidhe 22:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 22:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 22:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 22:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He appears to be a continuing education instructor at Cambridge rather than part of their core programs, in which it would be surprising for them to hire someone less than excellent academically. In any case, that's neither here nor there. I searched for but was unable to find evidence of highly cited works that would pass WP:PROF#C1, or published reviews of his books that could be used to pass WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
His influence on the subject of Archaeology and Anthropology, particularly Aztecs and Mayans is extensive. As well as the number of his publications and is at least of encyclopaedic import. Angloscottish (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but evidence is needed. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is hard to defend this ineptly written BLP, but by searching for "N James antiquity" in GS I dug up a moderate number of cites in a low cited field. His academic position indicates a successful academic career, and he is certainly part of Cambridge's "core program". Xxanthippe (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. I cleaned up the article a little to get a better look at it. The book Aztec & Maya has gone into three editions, which indicates some real success, but my brief hunts didn't turn up any reviews. A "Lecturer" at Cambridge is a permanent position-- in the US "lecturer" is a euphemism for an adjunct, but in the UK a Lecturer is an assistant professor. (Um.. and an "assistant" professor is nobody's assistant, they're a full-time tenure-track prof.) So he does seem to be established enough that I could believe an article is warranted. But I haven't found the NBOOK passes for NAUTHOR and I don't know the field well enough to know how to evaluate for NPROF. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are all established academics deemed to be notable regardless of RS coverage? To me that approach makes no sense, we do not apply it to any other profession. (t · c) buidhe 20:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. See WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

No, certainly not, sorry for the confusion-- I was responding to the discussion earlier in this AfD about whether he was "core" faculty at Cambridge. (Looking at that discussion again I think the debate may actually be about whether "Continuing Education" is a core program, rather than confusion over the title of Lecturer.) Being an established prof at Cambridge is not a notability claim in itself, just a sort of clue that it may be worth looking harder for sources than for someone earlier in their career or at a smaller school. Ditto the multiple editions feel like one of those "keep looking" hints. But in this case it doesn't look like the coverage is turning up. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, not all, however, this one is evidently worthy of note. Partly because the coverage he receives is notable from a smaller field, also given the number of hits he receives in editing books and his own articles he can be seen to be a respected academic in the field and surely does merit an article. Also, I would argue that Academics are in a unique profession that deserves greater note. Furthermore the fact that he is a Lecturer and Professor at Cambridge clearly shows that he is a remarkable academic to have reached such a level in academia at Cambridge, and is worthy of an article to celebrate his authorship and academia. Oxford375 (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I looked this character up on Google Scholar and he did receive a fair few hits and citations and the number of Editions for his Aztec & Maya book does suggest that he gives an impressive impact on the area. He also received a few hits on JSTOR as well, not as many as GS but still a few. It is perhaps unsurprising that he has not received all that many hits in all, as he has quite a narrow field. Therefore this might not be a totally fair comparison to take, and he should receive his article due to having a considerable number for such a small field. I would argue that he does fill the criteria for being a warranted article holder, certainly for being a notable academic, if not necessarily for being an author, although, I would say that as previously stated, for a narrow field, his impact is respectable and worthy of this article. Furthermore, given the number of books on the subject which he has been called in for, and credited for editing, it is clear that he is a notable person in the field. Furthermore, I completely endorse User:LEvalyn's points in his being a full Lecturer and Professor at Cambridge University and would say that his position there in combination with his already notable career, certainly justifies his article. Also as stated by User:buidhe, his family is clearly notable, which gives another aspect to his already thoroughly warranted article. Oxford375 (talk) 01:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's have links and numbers for GS and JStor. Wikipedia needs verifiable evidence to assess notability. The rest of your arguments are spurious. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

This is not something that appears on any other page, the fact of their existence is enough. Oxford375 (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to clarify that I am NOT arguing he is notable on the basis of being a Lecturer at Cambridge -- I was just trying to correct a misunderstanding I thought had emerged about his status there. Having a notable family also does not make him notable. The only viable notability rationale currently in the running appears to be the WP:NPROF#1 claim that he is the author of a highly cited work, which needs more justification. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I accept and agree that family is not a a basis of notability, I was merely acknowledging the original post with that statement Oxford375 (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough evidence to show a pass of WP:Prof. I also have doubts about the notability of Philip Seaforth James. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - looking at the discussion above, there's a lot to look at but not much to see, in a way. Doesn't quite pass the bar. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Neither of the books listed look like top flight academic books to me, rather popular archaeology. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There doesn't seem to be consensus over whether James passes WP:NPROF as those who have done a deep dive into his contributions argue that he is notable in his field. Hopefully consensus can emerge in the next few days on whether this is enough to establish notability in academia.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Cambridge academic titles are confusing enough to insiders, never mind those who aren't in the system, and a lot of the speculation above isn't super helpful or relevant. I will note that he is neither a fellow of Magdalene not on the faculty roll - he probably teaches college supervisions and is joint DoS, but in terms of academic rank he's nowhere near a professor. As to his research, with the caveat this isn't my field, his list of publications doesn't seem particularly notable, he has no notable memberships to learned societies, no book which would be on the syllabus, etc. Atchom (talk) 05:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is listed on Institute of Continuing Research profile page as a consultant lecturer. Couldn't find anything of worth. Not a professor or an associate professor. No book reviews that might have bailed him out. scope_creep^Talk 18:35, 4 April 2022 (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.