- 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. MBisanz talk 13:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Ralph Watkins
- Ralph Watkins ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable faculty, meeting neither WP:PROFor WP:NG. Named Associate Professor is not notability by WP:PROF, because it's even less than full professor, not a distinguished professorship greater than an ordinary professor.No academic publications. No national level awards. Part of a promotional campaign by the editor. DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Perhaps no better academics notability yet. SwisterTwister talk 19:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Deletehe actually does have academic publications, see here [1],but they don't appear to be major.-- Samuel J. Howard ( talk) 15:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)No !Vote-- Samuel J. Howard ( talk) 17:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)- Keep -- for WP:PROF C1. His "Hip-Hop redemption" has 250 library holdings (both university and public libraries) with a review of it in a major journal (Religious Studies Review, v38 n3 (September 2012)) which is generally enough for a keep. Articles in many major journals and in collected volumes pub'd by NYU Press, Oxford. Might be a close decision for some, but his area of research (African-American religious experience) is underrepresented on Wikipedia which is not a real factor in notability, but may already subconsciously be factoring in negatively. I do not see this as part of a promotional campaign (AGF). The author of the article created 28 articles of which at least 9 (nominator) or at least 14 (my count) are notable enough to not warrant AfD -- see User:Jcstanley/my articles for more discussion. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment -- The present article fails to indicate notability. If Michael Scott Cuthbert is right, the article needs amendment to demonstrate that he is notable. This is hinted at in the second paragraph, but not established. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping @
Peterkingiron:. The
General Notability Guideline says "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline below," (requiring independent RS asserting notability), "or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right," which includes
WP:PROF. I'm not adding anything new here to my argument above that it meets WP:PROF C1 (which I think it does but others might disagree), only that if it meets that guideline that no other demonstrations of notability are needed. --
Michael Scott Cuthbert
(talk) 17:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- That is exactly why I commented, not voted. I do not have the time or resources to make the requisite improvement. If the article is substantially improved, I will reconsider my position and may vote to keep. At present, the article does not show that he is notable. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping @
Peterkingiron:. The
General Notability Guideline says "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline below," (requiring independent RS asserting notability), "or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right," which includes
WP:PROF. I'm not adding anything new here to my argument above that it meets WP:PROF C1 (which I think it does but others might disagree), only that if it meets that guideline that no other demonstrations of notability are needed. --
Michael Scott Cuthbert
(talk) 17:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so Michael Scott Cuthbert's argument can be considered. Mark Arsten ( talk) 22:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 22:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Relisting so Michael Scott Cuthbert's argument can be considered. Mark Arsten ( talk) 22:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 22:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment, an article does not need to show that a subject is notable, see
WP:CONTN - "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." ie. editors should not expect other editors to improve an article to prove that the subject is notable (we are all busy, although if an editor wishes to, go for it
), sources cited at an afd is enough.
Coolabahapple (
talk) 17:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC) - Keep passes WP:PROF. Has major journal reviews. Also, see Michael Scott Cuthbert for more info. -- MurderByDeletionism "bang!" 06:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- 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.