Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brook Ziporyn

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. A fairly clear consensus here that Ziporyn doesn't meet the relevant notability criteria, but I will pre-emptively move this to the draft space after deletion as that has been requested multiple times in the discussion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brook Ziporyn

Brook Ziporyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A minor scholar who does not meet the WP:ACADEMIC criteria.  White Whirlwind  咨  21:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:He 1) is Professor at U Chicago School of Divinity, which meets criterion #6 2)has made impact in his discipline which is "significant" enough to meet #1. That is he is cited in probably half a dozen Wikipedia articles, his first 3 articles on Google scholar are cited by 33, 29, and 26. So, seems more than good enough, since readers of the articles with notes to works by him might want to know who he is. But the reference to the "most recent" translation of Zhuangzi should go. ch (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Contrary to what ch says, he does not meet WP:PROF#C6, unless he is somehow the president of the whole University of Chicago (that is what the "highest-level academic post" in that criterion means). But as an author of multiple books, there is a strong chance of passing WP:AUTHOR if we can dig up enough published reviews of or in-depth responses to those books. The Loy source is helpful in this respect, but it is only one source, and for only one of the books. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assess as Stub rather than delete Thanks to David Eppstein and apologies that I did not read the detailed explanation of criterion #6 in the following section. You are quite right. Apologies also that I do not have time now to look at the reviews of his books. But it seems that there may be enough to justify notability in the WP:Author area:
It would seem better to assess the article as "Stub" rather than delete, since there is more than enough raw material yet unmined. Cheers ch (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: Since I won't have time or access to a university library for a few weeks, if White_whirlwind, David Eppstein, and TonyTheTiger agree, according the essay WP:USERFY#YES we could move the article to a namespace for further work. I had no other connection to this article before this discussion began but I would be willing to move it to my userspace if nobody else wants to work on it. How does this sound?ch (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep (or possibly userfy). As noted above I think there are enough different in-depth reviews of enough of his books to pass WP:AUTHOR (an easier bar than WP:PROF#C1 but one that makes more sense for an area of academia where progress is measured in books rather than scientific papers). In particular, those who have subscription access can see the following reviews that I found through a Google scholar search (and which should be used to source the material about his books in our article): [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] (there is some overlap between the jstor ones and the others, so this is not quite as many links as it looks like, but still plenty). —David Eppstein (talk) 01:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Userfication request are made at WP:AN (not by pinging random editors). The closer of this nomination could also consider the request if it ends in delete or redirect. Since when does having papers reviewed make one notable. Every half decent junior professor would pass by this standard.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being a professor is not enough to make people notable. He is just one of many scholars in the field, and nothing makes him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete professor is not the "highest-level elected or appointed academic post", he is not even the head of his department. Yes his works have been cited several times, but none of those suggest that he has made a significant impact in his scholarly discipline. For an example of significant impact see Charles A. Beard. Fails WP:ACADEMIC and fails WP:AUTHOR. --Bejnar (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that the evidence now in the article does not justify Academic Notability, and ask that Bejnar accept my renewed apologies for mistakenly raising the "highest level" argument. I wonder how Johnpacklambert can know that "nothing makes him notable" before the evidence has been gathered. The fact that the case has not been made does not establish that the case cannot be made. As someone who works in the Asian studies field (though with no connection to Ziporyn or with the article before now), I believe that the case can be made and would appreciate having a few weeks until I have time to make a shot at it, after which the group can look at a better case.ch (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot support an extension of this Afd, since the article has been around since 1 February 2011 (almost four years). There are other options if you believe that a sufficient article can be written in the future. --Bejnar (talk) 03:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To remind friends who have commented here of several relevant considerations:
  • WP:ATD “If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.”
  • WP:Notability#Article content does not determine notability: " if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability."
  • The article has indeed existed since 2011, but Afd only for less than a week.
All the best, ch (talk) 04:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sorry, but there's not enough there there. No reason to doubt CWH's good will, but I got to admit I've heard "If only we had a few more weeks to improve the article" about a thousand times. If it hadn't been improved in years, there's no reason to think the material's there now. If CWH'd like to userfy it and take a stab at it, sure, great. Nha Trang Allons! 19:36, 24 December 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brook_Ziporyn&oldid=1071529262"