Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman K. Risjord

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. Appears to meet WP:PROF and/or WP:NAUTHOR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Norman K. Risjord

Norman K. Risjord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The discusison on whether the subject meets GNG/NPROF has been very long and held in at least two places (Talk:Norman K. Risjord and Template:Did you know nominations/Norman K. Risjord), producing walls of text. As far as I can say, proponents of his notability point out to him receiving Fulbright Program (twice?) as arguments for meeting NPROF #2&5; there are also claims he meets NPROF #1&7 and even GNG. I don't find any of these convinng, sadly. Nobody has written even a biography paragraph about him (that's independent), there's no SIGCOV, Fulbright Program IMHO doesn't meet NPROF requirements for significant awards, and his citation count is average. Now, in all honesty, I think NPROF should be more inclusive, (since our guidelines for sportspeople, for example, seem to have much lower threshold, and tightening them is impossible due to number of fans they have) but until it is, I think borderline cases like this need to be discussed (particularly as this is being promoted as DYK). Since other venues have been exhausted and discussion stalled at what I believe is no consensus, and recent comments at DYK suggested AfD is the final way to decide this, here we go. For the record, while I consider Risjord a respectable academic, I also feel he belongs to the group of "people doing their work" without, unfortunately, achieving notability (not all professors are notable). Hopefully in the near future he either receives some career-level awards OR some other scholar decies to write up a bio of him (hopefully, pre-obituary, not to sound morbid, but this is often when academics like this become notable, once their obits are published by their former students in peer reviewed works...). Pinging editors involved in this: @Gwillhickers, Narutolovehinata5, The Four Deuces, TheVirginiaHistorian, and Randykitty: _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with the nominator. There are insufficient sources to provide any useful information for a biography. What approach did he take to his subjects? Did his views change over time? Are his books still useful today, or have they been overtaken by new research? I notice that no books discuss his opinions, so they have no historical significance. TFD (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Although I was the editor who suggested that the article be taken to AFD, I am inhibiting from !voting as admittedly I am not very well-versed in WP:NPROF. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He meets wp:AUTHOR #3. Several of his books have been reviewed by noted journals. Thriley (talk) 07:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thriley, Could you cite the best reviews of his work? By that, I don't mean positive, they can be critical, but the ones published in most reputable media? When citing them, can you also link them? Vast majority of English scholarship should be digitized so links should be possible to find (sadly, they are not included in his article, which hampers verification). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

INSERT.  Done Of course Risjord’s importance is only partially reflected in the notability displayed whenever he published a new book in his field of academic concentration.

--- His 1961 publication of 1812: Conservatives, War Hawks, and the Nation’s Honor was reviewed in the W&M Quarterly, and it also gave place for Risjord’s article of the same title: in the William and Mary Quarterly, Jan 1961 Vol 18, No 2. By W.C. Eccles, p. 95, and it also gave place for Risjord’s article of the same title, April 1961 Vol 12, No 1. By Norman K. Risjord

Subsequent works received even more notice at publication, as Risjord's prominence in the field grew.

- Risjord’s academic notability is further confirmed in the scholarly important journals publishing his articles, EACH OF THESE JOURNALS are noteworthy enough at Wikipedia to merit their own stand-alone articles: William and Mary Quarterly, 1961, 1974, 1976, 1992; Southern Historical Association, 1967; Journal of American History 1974a, 1974b; Wisconsin Magazine of History 2001, 2004, 2005a, 2005b.

- Risjord’s scholarly esteem among his peers is also reflected in the list of academic journals that recognized Risjord’s notability by asking for him to review at least 46 monographs in 12 scholarly journals, including for those which have stand-alone articles on Wikipedia.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that means that there are multiple articles about an author's body of work, not just that individual books were reviewed. So for example we can verify that Stephen King is notable, even if no one has written his biography, because there many articles about his body of work, not just reviews for individual books. If we just had a few brief reviews of several of King's novels, especially if they were unrepresentative of his works, we couldn't create an objective article about him. TFD (talk) 07:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The Four Deuces rather than NOVELISTS, for a comparison of notability, those with movies made of their books, such as Ernest Hemingway and Stephen King; and Piotrus rather than SOCCER FOOTBALLERS, let’s not concern ourselves with those who do NOT qualify by any of the eight (8) criteria listed at wp:notability (academic). Instead, let’s consider the B-class articles on world-class intellectuals E. P. Thompson, and C. L. R. James with Wikipedia articles that are NOT deleted.

(1) E.P. Thompson was a British political leader that gained his work notoriety beyond academia. There are but three (3) journal reviews for his foremost polemic, The Making of the English Working Class, not Risjord’s ten (10), not Risjord's multiple publications with ten academic journal reviews over 32+ years.

- The only sourcing for a career critique of C.L.R. James is a YouTube trailer, and an author-centric online portal, neither is peer-reviewed reliable sourcing of internationally recognized scholarship, such as that related to a Fulbright SCHOLAR 'lectureship' of the 1950s and 1980s, or its 'prestigious scholar' of the 2020s, "the most prestigious award presented by the [Fulbright] Foundation".

(2) As to criteria #7. "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." - Both Marxist polemicists Thompson and James whose work is under comparison here, earned their widest bona fides OUTSIDE of academia. [They are in their own right “notable” intellectuals, though not wp:notability (academic) to the same extent demonstrated here for Risjord and in the article Norman K. Risjord].

- A two-year old socialist start up magazine with a self-published subscription of 75,000 has just now continued an online podcast on James for one (1) year. However it is not peer reviewed, versus Risjord, who notability broadcast his lectures on independent NPR Wisconsin Public Radio for twenty-two (22) years, sponsored by an accredited university.

- NPR here gives an “independent assessment of the scholar’s notability” over a continuing twenty-two (22) year period. - s/ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheVirginiaHistorian Can you add URLs to those reviews? In the article will be better, no need to do so here. I'd like to read a few. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus(A) At JSTOR home online, you can register for free to read 100 articles a month. Just search on each article title as cited in this thread, and you've got it in full. (B) There is also a Wikipedia link you can use on this page, set your cursor at the top of this page and search "JSTOR", and the first 'hit' is the Wikipedia link to JSTOR. Also, I can also search my notes . . . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know, it's mostly about best practices. Each review should be a separate footnote, with its own cite journal template, and with url parameter filled in. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

INSERT. 1812: Conservatives, War Hawks, and the Nation’s Honor was cited independently for its notable influence in the field Cited, Indiana Magazine of History, vol. 75, No.1 March 1979, p.70 by Donald R. Hickey; referenced in Journal of the Early Republic, Vol 5, No. 4 Winter 1985, p. 441 by Steven Edwin Siry. These are NOTABILITY (ACADEMIC) CRITERIA marks of lasting scholarship from the beginning of his career - 20 and 35 years AFTER this seminal scholarship WAS STILL INFLUENCING ACADEMIC WRITING IN THE FIELD;

- likewise the NOTABILITY (ACADEMIC) CRITERIA are fulfilled on yet another count, by scholarly publishers REPRINTING Risjord's monographs 7, 10, and 15 years AFTER their initial publication in multiple follow-on editions of the same important CONTINUING contributions to the scholarly field of his concentration, expertise and enduring notability - and not just on 'anniversary dates' that ALSO qualify for WP: ACADEMIC NOTABILITY. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Four Deuces For the record, I am pretty sure there are numerous biographies of Stephen King (here's a book dedicated to him, and here's an entry for him in a specialized encyclopedia - I am sure there's more). So that's not the best comparison :P But yes, I agree,it's hard to build notability for someone when nobody anywhere said they are "important" (significant, notable, etc.). That said, as I said above, the bar is much lower for sportspeople; we have thousands of tiny biographies that just record some sportsmen one or two 'notable' matches or such. If Mr. Risjord would only kick a ball a few times instead of doing research, sigh... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Piotrus: Someone somewhere said Risjord is "especially strong" as a 'professional scholar', versus the 'published-doctorate-scholar' who is panned in the same review on the same topic.

WP: academic notability, Criteria #1. "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources."

- In an independent peer-reviewed scholarly journal with its own stand-alone (Start-class) article on Wikipedia, the Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, July, 1995, p. 266, Risjord's Thomas Jefferson is reviewed noting the seasoned professional scholar is "especially strong in showing how Jefferson managed to combine strong elements of classical republicanism and Lockean liberalism in his political ideology and in tracing how the balance between them constantly shifted under changing circumstances. ...Firmly in command of the sources, ...Risjord leads the reader authoritatively through the stages of Jefferson's career and provides a convincing assessment of his place in history." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep clearly passes WP:NAUTHOR per excellent analysis by @TheVirginiaHistorian:. I think TheVirginiaHistorian went above and beyond what is necessary here. Also some notability per WP:NPROF#1 given his high citation count on Google scholar (high for a historian). This seems like a pretty open and shut case. --hroest 14:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is that despite his books having been reviewed, the editors working on the article have been unable to use them to add meaningful information. So for example, a review cited above says that Jefferson combined Lockean liberalism and civic republicanism. But how did he do this? Which of his policies fall into the two categories. Was his opinion exceptional or what everyone else was saying? Did it influence any other writers? Were any papers written about his views? Compare this with Bernard Bailyn, author of The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. These articles outline how Bailyn challenged existing orthodoxy, what he proposed and what influence he had. We don't just say he was an important historian who had a lot of influence and leave it at that. TFD (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That's  Not done here. The Four Deuces, in the quoted review above for Risjord’s Thomas Jefferson, TFD: is the contribution meaningful?, Risjord is established in the review as “a seasoned professional scholar” in his field. In this monograph, Risjord showed Jefferson to combine both "classical republicanism" [representative governance versus monarchy, oligarchy, dictator] with "Lockean liberalism" [sovereignty of the people, right of self government as rule by those ruled], see wp:common knowledge.

- In Jefferson, Risjord shows TFD: how did he do this? Jefferson balanced between them, shifting their prominence in his thinking by giving them different weight in the scales “under changing circumstances.” TFD: which policies? The article to date is 'C-class' and as the particulars of Risjord’s contributions are outlined, it will certainly qualify for 'B-class' status. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While liberalism and republicanism may be common knowledge terms, Lockean liberalism and classical (or civic) republicanism are not. The first was used by Louis Hartz, while the second was used by Bailyn in their competing theories of U.S. ideology. But Risjord never mentions these ideologies in his book. I suppose that when Jefferson agreed to continue Federalist policies he was being liberal, while when he praised yeomen farmers he was being republican. But we would need a reliable secondary source to analyze what Risjord meant. TFD (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We're getting side-tracked here. This forum is to decide whether to keep the article based on Notability. Risjord's views on Jefferson, etc, don't have any bearing on any of the criteria for academic notability. Risjord is noted for, among other things, his volumes of work, which are widely cited by hisrotians, regardless of any particular views these works may express. That is a side issue. This is not the forum to hash out the finer points of Risjord's views on any particular subject. You should take this discussion to Risjord Talk if you are interested in expanding the article in this area. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability means there is significant coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." In the source TVH provided, there is little detail and it requires original research to extract the content. Basically, you are unable to tell me anything about the subject other than that he wrote about U.S. history and his books were favorably reviewed. TFD (talk) 06:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We've been through this before, in DYK, in that RfC you initiated, and in Risjord Talk. As was done before, you're simply filling up the discussion with unresponsive repetitive talk. Risjord's notability is covered on several accounts in the article. As was explained for you, here and here, we need not cover the finer points of Risjord's views on particular subjects in the article to help bolster Risjord's overall notability. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Four Deuces POSTED BELOW at 20:27, 23 July 2021 - some ten hours prior to yours here,

- Please try to keep up with current posting on the thread, it may otherwise appear to others that you sidetrack otherwise pertinent discussion related to Risjord's academic notability. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned before, you have been unable to use any of these references to provide meaningful information about Risjord and more importantly to add any of it to the article. So he coined the term "Virginia's first political party." Presumably since there are political parties in Virginia, there was a first political party. You need to explain the significance of his use of the term. For example, Seymour Martin Lipset coined the term "radical right" to describe a strain of politics in the U.S. and there is a whole article that explains what he meant, who adopted the term, criticisms of the term, which movements it applies to etc. TFD (talk) 08:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The Four Deuces every reference provides meaningful information about Risjord, and each provides material to add to the article to promote it from C-class to B-class status.

(1) While in the abstract we can see ONCE elites in legislature caucus, a "party-as-A", THEN they were redefined socially as mass political movements across social classes, "party-as-B", Risjord is the American historian who located the transition in time and how it occurred among Virginia society in a way that brought him immediate and continuing prominence in his academic field of scholarship.

(2) His notability was such that in the same issue of his book reviewed in an academic journal, he was given prominence in the same issue to author a full length article of the same title, a remarkable achievement unequalled by Seymour Martin Lipset. Like Lipset, Risjord coined a phrase that is widely used today in the particular meaning he gave to it in his scholarship.

- Yes, there should be an additional Wikipedia article on "political party" as elites in legislature caucus developing into "political" party as mass movement amalgamating social classes in a multi-cultural community into an ideological political party that can win elections and majority rule in government for six presidential elections with Jefferson, Madison and Monroe.

(3) Risjord's notability is continuously demonstrated in his field. In the example here, Jon Meacham's 2013 Pulitzer Prize-winning book, Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power cites Risjord eleven (11) times and quotes extensive passages from Risjord's 2009 Jefferson's America 1750-1815 directly. Meacham leans on Risjord for Risjord's ground-breaking scholarship on cultural continuities, social history of the common soldier, and the roles blacks and women played in both the Revolution and the War of 1812. Risjord's emphasis on social history from the 1950s was later adopted by American Marxists as they dropped economic determination as a central tenet of historical interpretation after 1989, which is also part of Risjord's influence in American historiography (although among American Marxists, the Stalinist 'vanguard' had been previously challenged by Trotsky and C.L.R. James promoting a widely based party of mass participation using liberal democracy as an analytical 'stage of history'.

(4) Risjord successfully observed in influential monographs and journal articles, and so persuaded other mainstream contributors to American historiography, that a majority of the majority party in all sections of the country as represented in Congress did vote for war against the British in the War of 1812, "the Second American Revolution". And in so doing, they demonstrated a significant party unity in action, unlike the previous historiography emphasizing sectionalism of the New Englander Federalist outvoted minority (later the Hartford Convention). In this, Risjord was a seminal innovator in American historical thought who contributed to the scholarship based on "cliometrics", data from political and economic sources rather letters and diaries alone for clues about the past and how people interacted together. While there were certainly sectional differences and rivalries to be found attested to in the personal papers and public addresses by Members of Congress, looking at who voted for war from where led Risjord to read into the speeches, letters and diaries of those voting for war as topic-centered research, rather than elevating any sectional emphasis of the subject of one's own doctoral dissertation to the exclusion of the whole story, rewriting book after book about 'your man' for an academic career. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you need to show that you can put these snippets together into an informative article. So far, you have not done this. That's probably because it cannot be done without substantial synthesis. So we have an article that says the subject was notable but provides no evidence of this. TFD (talk) 10:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

wp:Synthesis is nowhere proposed, AND it is  Not done anywhere in the article.

Agree. contributors to the article can elaborate article sections, and extend existing descriptive narrative to advance the article status from C-class to B-class. But there is NO justification found in any Wikipedia guideline or policy to delete any C-class articles until they are advanced to B-class-worthy in an editor's sandbox before publishing it in Wikipedia mainspace.

Readers find the existing article as written with multiple secondary wp:reliable sources that provide independent third party critiques demonstrating Norman K. Risjord is a scholar of wp:notability (academic). No, the article does not assert authority as a reliable source quoting itself with unsupported assertions, it footnotes to notable scholars publishing feature length critical book reviews in peer-reviewed academic journals.

(1) At wp:BASIC, we find, People are presumed notable [with] significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject, as the several dozen journal citations provided that all attest to Risjord's notability. Nor has any editor in the article discussions every found any ONE or several among the 50 or so journal reviews that dismisses Risjord's scholarly work in over 80 days of discussion.

(2) The General Notability Guideline continues that in the event there is not an independent monograph reporting on the life of the scholar, "...then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." so, EDITORS HAVE BEEN MISTAKEN to insist on a monograph from an academic publisher dedicated to the scholarship of Norman K. Risjord. There are over 40 scholarly reviews, across academic journals of (a) three (3) historic periods, (b) three (3) specialty fields of history, political science, and economics, and (c) three (3) geographies of the United States, the American South and the state of Virginia. These "multiple independent sources" do NOT militate against maintaining the Risjord article, it justifies maintaining it here at Wikipedia at cited and linked here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Four Deuces: this is the wrong place to discuss how to structure the article, please use the article talk page for your discussion with TheVirginiaHistorian. This page is to determine whether the subject is notable for inclusion in Wikipedia or not. --hroest 16:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hannes Röst, see General notability guideline: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The fact that that it is impossible to write this article without using original research to tie together the brief mentions of the author is why it fails notability. The proof is that after substantial effort, editors have not been able to add anything from these sources other than that the writer was well regarded. Instead of saying, "Wow, that's a lot of sources, he must notable," take time to read some of them and see if you can have better success. Citations incidentally don't establish notability when they are merely used to support facts and no mention is made of the author or his work. TFD (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Four Deuces: while you are correct for the GNG, what actually applies here are the WP:NPROF guidelines which state This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH, etc., and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline so therefore the GNG does not apply. Once we have established this, we can read that WP:NPROF does not require significant coverage. So your analysis is correct if the article would fall under GNG, but since it falls under WP:NPROF none of what you said applies here. Additionally, per WP:NPROF you can use non-independent sources such as this so I dont see the problem with writing an article about him. --hroest 17:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Several of his works appear to have received multiple independent reviews, which qualifies him via NAUTHOR #3. However, I'm not sure what the extent of the coverage of these reviews is -- if they're just blurbs or mentions or citations of a book then that wouldn't count. TheVirginiaHistorian, can you clarify the content of some of these reviews? JoelleJay (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done The reviews are NOT 'blurbs'. Rather, they feature-length book reviews in peer-reviewed academic journals, as cited above with pagination. Each journal is a wp:reliable source, each critically establishes (a) the scholar’s importance or lack thereof in the historiographic field, (b) the strength of the monograph’s contribution to the literature, and (c) any context for exceptional scholarship revealing new interpretation. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • TheVirginiaHistorian, I saw your above references for the reviews, however I do not have access to most of them so I can't actually evaluate them for myself, and it's not clear from your citation style that any of them are more than one page. That's why I asked whether they were blurbs -- something contained on only one page could be a substantial review, but it could also just be a paragraph description or name-drop. JoelleJay (talk) 04:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• JoelleJay(A) At JSTOR home online, you can register for free to read 100 articles a month. Just search on each article title as cited in this thread, and you've got it in full. (B) There is also a Wikipedia link you can use on this page, set your cursor at the top of this page and search "JSTOR", and the first 'hit' is the Wikipedia link to JSTOR. Also, I can also search my notes . . . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A significant number of reviews have been provided, and it looks like he more than meets requirements as an author and academic. Side note: I'm coming over here from DYK and Academic notability is not my strong suit but I wanted to weigh in. editor identifies at edit history BuySomeApples

• Keep. Risjord's body of work meets wp:notability (academic) criteria #1, #2, #5, and #7. - - - Recall from the previous discussion by Gwillhickers, impact on Risjord's scholarly field:

(1) In John Ferling's, A leap in the Dark - The Struggle to Create the American Republic, (2003), p.269, he acknowledges and quotes a phrase coined by Risjord, i.e."Virginia's first political party" - - - In Jon Meacham's Pulitzer Prize winning book, Thomas Jefferson, (2012), he refers to Risjord eleven (11) times. Examples include lengthy excerpts from Risjord's work, Jefferson's America. p. 541.

(2) In a journal article, The Sectional Politics of Practical Republicanism, p. 441, by Steven Edwin Siry, (JSTOR 3123061) it refers to Risjord's work, Election of 1812, as a major study, p. 441. --- On P. 446 Siry notes that "...however, with publications by Bradford Perkins and Norman K. Risjord, the viewpoint changed. Advocates of the new interpretation see NO significant sectionalism [fracturing] between a pro-war South and West and an anti-war North; rather, they emphasize the high degree of [intersectional majority] PARTY UNITY in the vote for war."

s/ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes Nauthor as demonstrated above. His work is very niche, so I can see why this is here. Desertarun (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — As was outlined at length in Risjord Talk, and at DYK, and now here, Risjord meets several of the criteria for academic notability. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• And, each academic is only required to meet one (1) of the eight (8) criteria at wp:notability (academic) to qualify for an article at Wikipedia. - NOTHING YET to impeach Risjord qualifying for Criteria #7, nor National Public Radio as an authoritative source of notability, nor ANY reliable source to challenge the independent judgement of Wisconsin Public Radio. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I still don't see how being interviewed or being a host for some show makes him notable as an academic. It's a side job or a hobby, with very little impact, nothing more. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ERRATA INSERT. The profound misunderstanding and unverified assertions found in the Piotrus edit of 9:44, 24 July 2021 confuses a scholarly lecture as described and cited to a reliable independent source in the Wisconsin State Journal. Madison, Wisconsin Plato Lectures for seniors are neither hosting a talk show guest on air, nor sitting as an interview guest on a radio talk show.

Regardless, the Wisconsin Public Radio editorial judgment to sponsor the on-air lecture series for 28 years meets the Criterion #7 for wp:notability (academic), "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." It matters little if a POV supposes that providing free publicly available higher education in Madison WI is a "hobby, with very little impact". The Madison Wisconsin, Wisconsin State Journal disagreed, a reliable source for the Madison Wisconsin community 1950-2019, the period of time that concerns us in this thread. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus : Referring to Risjord's effort as merely a "side job" unfairly understates matters. The "show" Risjord hosted lasted 22 years. The forum consisted of Professor Risjord's lectures, at the University of Wisconsin, on various topics in early American history broadcasted over NPR public radio. This was highly unusual and distinguishing for a history professor. The article says.. "in 1967 he began broadcasting his classroom lectures over NPR Wisconsin Public Radio, furthering the University's commitment to contribute to the education of every household in the state of Wisconsin. These continued periodically until 1989".  This effort alone well establishes criteria 7. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It must be WP:Snowing in July. Easily passes WP:NAUTHOR. Dr. Universe (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, TJMSmith. The article does NOT qualify for Articles for Deletion WP:AFD.

Of special interest will be new contributions on Risjord’s work as assessed in scholarly journal reviews by scholars with WP:Notability in Risjord’s academic field: 1)Lance Banning, 2) Paul Goodman, 3) Willard Sterne Randall, and 4) Joseph J. Ellis.

- s/ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the author of a notable body of work. pburka (talk) 01:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Pburka. All contributors acknowledge there is more to be done to develop the Norman K. Risjord as written to date. The article has a C-class status. However, as noted at wp:article development, ANY C-class status article:

- a. provides more than ENOUGH INFORMATION for the casual reader, but it does NOT meet WP:ASSESS B-class requirement as a professional encyclopedia article.

- b. needs ADDITIONAL editing to close gaps in content, i.e. TFD noted as collegial editorial direction to contributors, for the to-do list: compare and contrast the historiography of the subject to other scholars before, during and after his career.

- c. has RELIABLY SOURCED citations but some may require cleanup.

- s/ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the article is rated at B class, as it meets all the criteria for that class - remembering that article class has no bearing on notability or AFD matters. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, old news that has been superceded since my last inspection. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not my name, and this forum is called Articles for Deletion, not Articles for Reclassification. If you don't think it meets the criteria for C-class, please start a discussion to correct the classification on the talk page. pburka (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

noted and corrected. thanks.

Rather than 'deletion' for Norman K. Risjord, the linked WP guidance at WP:ASSESS and its sister articles - in this case directs editors to contribute to the article so as to (a) expand existing text, (b) close existing gaps, and (c) cleanup citations as needed, instead of article deletion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @TheVirginiaHistorian, a courtesy reminder that there is no need to respond to each reply, which is considered badgering. Your points have already been made well. czar 05:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as he passes NAUTHOR thanks to many reviews of his books in reputable publications.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2021 (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.