Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Perrin

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 no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Perrin

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not clear how this might meet WP:PROF or WP:BIO. All but one reference listed in bulleted section is written by Perrin himself. There is no indication that this person meets criteria 2-9 of WP:PROF. While his books have been cite by some according to Google Scholar, the impact does not appear to be nearly significant enough to meet 1 of WP:PROF. General fails WP:BIO due to a lack of significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. (hotly) contested prod by original creator who has reverted maintenance tags placed by multiple other editors. RadioFan (talk) 13:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perrin is mentioned in numerous Wikipedia articles as a qualified expert, he holds an academic position, published by various peer-reviewed journals, is a noted commentator on the Gospel of Thomas (see any scholarly work on Thomas), etc. No reason for this to be tagged for deletion other than overzealous editors who haven't done their homework. --Ari (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to share what a simple Wikipedia search would have brought up:

Ecclesiastes "Nicholas Perrin has suggested that the framing device of Ecclesiastes was used to point to the Messiah.[11]..."
Gospel of Thomas "Nicholas Perrin argues that Thomas is dependent on the Diatessaron, which was composed shortly after 172 by Tatian in Syria.[39]..."
Gnostic Gospels "Some scholars including Nicholas Perrin argue that Thomas is dependent on the Diatessaron, which was composed shortly after 172 by Tatian in Syria.[10]"
Q Document "# Nicholas Perrin has argued that the Gospel of Thomas was based on Tatian's Gospel and harmony with the Diatessaron instead of the Q document.[10]"

--Ari (talk) 14:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' While I appreciate the fervor you are defending this article with, I'm not seeing whats required for it to meet inclusion guidelines. As mentioned in the nomination, Perrin's work has been cited by others but the notability bar for academics is considerably higher. The title of "associate professor" doesn't help meet notability guidelines here. There is no indication that he been appointed to a named academic post has received any honors or awards for his work or is a member of any prestigious scholarly society, nor has he had any impact outside academia. The one area that might help him meet inclusion guidelines is his research. As you mention, he has written a number of books on the Gospel of Thomas. However the impact of this is not clear. These books have been cited by others in journals and papers but many of these citations are Perrin himself referring to his own books. This doesn't meet the "significant impact" and evidence that his work has been "broadly construed" that WP:PROF demands. --RadioFan (talk) 9:12 am, Today (UTC−5)

Comment I wasn't aware that your personal ignorance of him counted against his notability. Despite your claims, his works are known outside of academia (and he has written books at the request of popular press), as well as within academia. Similarly, he actually is a member of a number of significant scholarly societies such as SBL and IBR. Contra your other claims, his mentions in books and journals are not him mentioning himself. Check the repeatedly presented sources. It's okay if you made a mistake prematurely tagging an article. --Ari (talk) 14:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to above, there are also the scholarly secondary sources. A handful being:

April DeConick in Recovering the Original Gospel of Thomas: A History of the Gospel and Its Growth (and other works).
Craig A. Evans and Emanuel Tov in Exploring the origins of the Bible: canon formation in historical, literary and theological perspective
Larry W. Hurtado in Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity
Craig L. Blomberg in Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey
As well as in International Review of Biblical Studies: Internationale Zeitschriftenschau Fur Bibelwissenschaft und Grenzgebiete Volume 50 of International Review of Biblical Studies; and many more.

--Ari (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article easily meets the requirements of the basic criteria of WP:Bio as well as WP:ACADEMIC for the above reasons. Evidently, there is no reason for deletion of this article as the proposed reasons are demonstrably false.--Ari (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a tad more regarding the claims against notability in the field of Thomasine studies, Perrin was selected to write the two parts on Thomasine studies in Currents in Biblical Research which discusses the direction in the field as well as consensus. (N. Perrin, "Recent Trends in Gospel of Thomas Research (1991-2006): Part I, The Historical Jesus and the Synoptic Gospels" in Currents in Biblical Research. 2007; 5: 183-206) --Ari (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
re: lack of third party coverage, over 10 academic works engaging with his influential thesis (e.g. as followed by Craig A. Evans the claim that "lack of significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources" seems to demonstrate nothing but bad research on the respective editors part. --Ari (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete google scholar [1] has one book cited five times in one form, four in another. To find this I had to sort through pages and pages of citations for a different (and clearly WP:PROF passing) biologist Nicolas Perrin, and mathematician Nicolas Perrin (I note that Nicolas Perrin is a different individual, who also seems to fail WP:BIO). I don't see clear evidence of passing WP:PROF through demonstrable impact. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the various citations from academic books engaging with his influential thesis. Leading scholars have followed the thesis (e.g. Craig A. Evans above.) He is widely published, widely reviewed in both academic and lay circles, etc. I don't think writing him off on the basis of a generic search because his name is similar to others is meaningful, nor does it reflect the scholarly impact. Some of the discussions on him in prominent peer-reviewed academic works that don't come up in a search of Google Scholar:

Craig A. Evans and Emanuel Tov, Exploring the origins of the Bible: canon formation in historical, literary and theological perspective.'

April DeConick, Recovering the Original Gospel of Thomas: A History of the Gospel and Its Growth. p.48

Larry W. Hurtado in Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity.

Craig L. Blomberg,Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey. (2nd Edition)

Shedinger, Robert F. Review of Biblical Literature, 2003, Vol. 5, p509.

Morrice, Wm G.. Expository Times, Jun2003, Vol. 114 Issue 9, p310

Williams, P. J. European Journal of Theology, 2004, Vol. 13 Issue 2, p139-140

Joosten, Jan. Aramaic Studies; Jan2004, Vol. 2 Issue 1, p126-130.

Taylor, Nicholas H. Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 2008 Booklist, Vol. 30 Issue 5, p120-121

Kenneth D. Litwak, review of Nicholas Perrin, Thomas, The Other Gospel, Review of Biblical Literature [2] (2008).

Robert F Shedinger, review of Nicholas Perrin, Thomas and Tatian: The Relationship between the Gospel of Thomas and the Diatessaron, Review of Biblical Literature [3] (2003).

N. Perrin, "Recent Trends in Gospel of Thomas Research (1991-2006): Part I, The Historical Jesus and the Synoptic Gospels" in Currents in Biblical Research. 2007; 5: 183-206

--Ari (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Google Scholar, if you quote his name such as here, there are far more than implied by the earlier statement. i.e. ~90. --Ari (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That GS search turns up nothing new in terms of citations. He's published, but that doesn't make him notable. Documenting notable impact of his publications would, that's why I spoke about citations. I looked, and did not see the sort of documentable impact that I expect to demonstrate that a subject passes WP:PROF, and I see no evidence that he passes WP:BIO. Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"See the ground breaking work of Nicholas Perrin, Thomas: The Other Gospel... as well as his Thomas and Tatian... (Theology as Conversation, Bruce L. McCormack, et al. p.23) --Ari (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Author has made a clearly significant impact in the area of NT scholarship. Editors should investigate the subject for five minutes before nominating articles for deletion. — goethean ॐ 19:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ari89 as he is clearly notable. Arhus denizen (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC) note this is Arhus denizen's second edit at wikipedia, the user's first edit was also at AfD. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, associate professor, h-index of 4. Has one drum he is beating; this is what professors are supposed to do. But the general lack of interest in his work suggests that he is not notable. Abductive (reasoning) 01:10, 24 December 2009 (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.