Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Palfrey

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The result was Nomination withdrawn. -- Longhair\^talk 09:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Palfrey[edit]

After a month, this page still makes no case for notability, features no citations, orphaned, and little more content than a list of three presumably non-notable books. MrZaius^talk 21:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC) Nom withdrawn, concerns adequately met. MrZaius^talk 20:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm reminded of the VISA commercials where they'd talk about some far-off establishment, and give the punch line, "But they won't take American Express." Yes, he is a Rhodes Scholar, but that's about it, and Wikipedia won't take his article. Okay, that joke fell flat. Sorry. Yechiel Man 21:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added some references. There are many reviews and descriptions of his books. Being a Rhodes Scholar is not in itself notable, but being a Fellow of an Oxford College could well be notable depending on what the Fellow has done. In this case I suggest his publications meet WP:PROF. It needs more work. If it is not deleted, it will be reasonably easy to add references to this article from other articles. --Bduke 00:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The key concern is that notability still doesn't seem to be backed up by tertiary or secondary sources. All the sources that were added seem to be from his employer, his coauthor's employer, or pitching the book. Do you have any independent sources to back up a case under WP:PROF? MrZaius^talk 08:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across this at AfD and thought that a Fellow of an Oxford University College with several books was likely to be notable. Many Oxford Fellows would be full Professors in another university if they moved, but they choose to stay at Oxford as a College Fellow and University Lecturer. Most of the references I added do not address notability, I agree. They address verifiability. The first confirms he wrote one book. The third confirms the forthcoming book and that it is written with a coaurthor, a colleague in the University Dept of English and a Fellow of another College. The 4th and 5th confirm that he is a Fellow of Brasenose College and some of the statements about his specialty. The second however is an independent review in a reputable journal of the other book mentioned, so that points towards notability. I had hoped that including this in two relevant deletion sorting lists would attract others who know more about him and English studies than I do to add more references. Since they have not, I will look for more sources. --Bduke 23:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more references including some reviews of his books. There are other reviews, some from countries other than the UK. His books are used in other universities. I can not however find a CV, so much information is missing. However it seems he has a D Phil from Oxford and was at Liverpool University in the 1990s. This article needs work from an expert in this area, but I still think he is notable enough for an article. --Bduke 01:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Does not appear to meet criteria set out at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). being a Fellow of an Oxford College could well be notable depending on what the Fellow has done, Indeed - so it would depend on what he has done, not on his being a fellow. Has he done anything notable? --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC) Additional input meets WP:N[reply]

It depends whether you think writing books that have been well reviewed and are used in other universities is notable. I think it is although I would like more information about him. How would you judge the books? --Bduke 02:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please identify exactly which criterion in Wikipedia:Notability (academics) is met, and why. Stop with this "How would you judge the books" guff. I would judge the books as lacking any claim to notability. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Well it is question of interpretation of that guideline. The reviews seem to indicate "The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources". He appears to meet "The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course". The second point does need referencing in the article, but a Google search shows at least Bristol University uses one of his books. My argument at this stage is simply that it seems valuable encyclopedic material and I would like to see more people improve the article, rather than blanket demands for deletion. --Bduke 02:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which review seems to indicate "The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources"? Are you asserting that at least one of his books is a significant and well-known academic work? My argument at this stage is that criteria have been established for notability, and it it reasonable to impose a test against those criteria at any point, not least after a month and a half on wikipedia. Hoping that something better will come along if a non-notable article is left in place would in all cases negate a deletion request based on non-notability; as such it appears to be an illogical argument. --Tagishsimon (talk)

"Doing Shakespeare is an original and long-overdue resource for theatre scholar-artists" (Ref 3). I do not see someone doing that without being a significant expert. "I cannot think of another critic since Empson who has teased out so much so lucidly and (usually) so persuasively from the intricacies of Shakespearean language" (ref 5). That seems significant to me. It is the basis of at least one course. I did not say leave it in place. I said I wanted an expert to come along and work on it and meant while this AfD is running. If nobody does, it probably will be deleted. I just do not think that makes the encyclopedia any better. I also note that there is considerable disagreement about the notability guidelines, particularly at WP:N. But anyway, I'm leaving it to others to judge the evidence and hopefully provide more. --Bduke 03:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: took two minutes in JSTOR to find all the reviews anyone could possibly need showing that his books are considered important by the English literature community, and another ten minutes to add references to his enormous contributions to the article. If you're going to say that his books lack any claim to notability, you'll need to look in the journals where these types of books are reviewed. There's where you'll find the notability. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. We're not going to say his books are not notable. We were asking whether they are. You have answered the question well enough to sway the argument. And that is one of the things AfD is good for. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Sorry if my tone was harsh -- might be the extraordinary heat where I am now! I know that not everyone has access to JSTOR or a library with Shakespeare Quarterly, etc. However, for English language academics in the humanities and some social sciences, a tiny search on JSTOR can immediately make an editor say "Whoa! This should be a major article, not an AfD!" When I forget that it's not an easily accessed resource, I hope others here will give me a gentle nudge (or a swift kick in the pants). -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'll blow cool air onto your fevered brow, kindly! --Tagishsimon (talk)

Keep. Research before nominating articles for deletion is your friend. Rebecca 14:17, 28 June 2007 (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.