Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Haviser

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. Seems like the WP:NAUTHOR arguments carry the day here Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Haviser[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)

Not confident this guy meets any of the points in WP:NPROF. As I've admitted elsewhere, I'm not the best judge of NPROF, so I ran it by DGG. He advised it was a borderline case so I figured I'd run it by AfD. I'm by no means strenuously arguing for deletion, so I'm happy to withdraw if people are pretty sure he meets the criteria. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Agree with nom: borderline. GS h-index of 11 a bit low. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]

H index is irrelevant outside science and the experiemental social sciences. This is particularly true in archeology, where publication is very specialized and the citation density is low. DGG ( talk ) 09:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of his books is held in over 1600 libraries, potentially meeting WP:PROF#C1 (I don't know much about how this relates to library holdings, though). IntoThinAir (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--I need to see at-least 3 major publications, which have been extensively reviewed. The positions that he held does not confer notability either. ∯WBG^converse 19:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Commenting to point out that he is the author of two independently notable books: African Sites: Archaeology in the Caribbean and African Re-Genesis: Confronting Social Issues in the Diaspora. (They were not linked in the article at the time of nomination.) MarkZusab (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, because you did only write the articles two days ago. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos and MarkZusab: - in a sense, that's an interesting variation of WP:HEY - demonstrate notability by improving/creating articles other than the one undergoing AfD WP:HEYOTHER? Nosebagbear (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the multiple reviews of his books linked above (WP:PROF#C1/WP:AUTHOR), although I'd merge them into Haviser's article. – Joe (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR based on reviews of his books. Thsmi002 (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Joe (either criterion). Nosebagbear (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2019 (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.