Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grant Parker

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 speedy keep. I don't believe it's necessary to drag this out any longer. (non-admin closure) Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 19:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Parker

[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)

Fails WP:NACADEMIC and appears to fail the general notability guidelines as well. While he is the chair of the Department of Classics at Stanford [1], that doesn't appear to qualify him under criteria 6 of the academic notability guidelines and he's an associate professor regardless. All of the current citations in the article are affiliated with Parker himself as well. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 03:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 03:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 03:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 03:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 03:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 03:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator's second AfD nomination of classics academics. What does the nominator think of the subject's citation record, which is not negligible for a classicist? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I'm mainly looking at the sources and what I personally can see. I nominated it for deletion because I didn't see any sources not affiliated with the author and looking about on many websites doesn't provide me with much information on this person being well-known in their field. I'm not particularly certain what you mean. Do you have any sources? Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 04:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the scholar link, which you should have done under WP:Before. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. I added nine reviews of his two authored books and one each of three edited volumes to the article. I think that's enough for WP:AUTHOR. (FYI, since there's discussion above about how to find such sources: Many of these can be found by going to jstor.org's "advanced search" page, searching for Parker's name, and clicking the checkbox that limits the search to reviews only.) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Black Issues Emerging Scholar recognition tips over the line for me. [2][3] --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under WP:Author and WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Enough reviews for WP:NAUTHOR, strong citation record for a low-citation field gives possible pass of WP:NPROF C1. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:Author.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:45, 8 June 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.