336:. As for the Worldcat numbers, in fact, they aren't meaningful, and I was going to anyway suggest that they be dropped from the article. #1) there are about 70K libraries represented in WorldCat, so a number like "353" is much less than a drop in the bucket. (I myself have a publication that has over 1100 holdings as listed in WorldCat. I am not wp:notable.) #2) those numbers are far from stable. I was trying to do some research based on them and noticed that they changed every time I searched. I contacted folks at OCLC and they admitted that the numbers appear to change depending on the state of the database over time in terms of record merging and other database maintenance. #3) If you wish to cite numbers, they have to be meaningful, which would be how does this book rank in relation to others in the same field? By searching on subject headings from the book I found some in the 800's and 900's. I found others in the 300's and 200's. What does this mean for this book? At best, you can show that, ballpark, it's fair to middling. But you can't say that a particular number, like '353' proves anything.
266:; the article as submitted was hopelessly inadequate. nut I filled it in, and they could have also. The additional judgements, added before I did that, seem to be based on the absence of data, saying essentially that if the article is inadequate, the person must not be notable. We have never in the last 4 or 5 years deleted an article for a full professor at a major university, except for those fields, such as education, where apparently there is a feeling that they are not worth serious consideration (and also excepting a few individuals with unpopular views whether in their own or on unrelated subjects). Both represent prejudice.
315:
The sources are good enough. The holdings data from
Worldcat is a reliable independent source, that establishes notability because of its proof of the number of books and their widespread presence. If you want to be technical, they show the widespread holdings for each of the seven books separately
296:
However, once notability has been established through independent sources, non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details." (My emphasis) Are you saying that evidence that the professor
261:
Meets the requirements as a specialist in his field , on the basis of seven published books by major publishers, some of the quite widely held, and three of them translated into
Chinese (which shows international recognition). I wonder whether the nom e thought about
291:
page. There it states: "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in
Knowledge (XXG) because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject.
297:
did indeed publish meets this criterion, and that third-party information about the person and his/her research is not needed? (I'm not questioning that reasoning, I'm trying to square your criteria with what I understand as
168:
377:
316:& are thus multiple sources, each of them totally independent from him or his university. It would, of course, be preferable to have reviews in addition, in which case it would furthermore meet WAUTHOR.
417:
121:
397:
162:
437:
332:
I'm not sure what you mean by "the sources are good enough." There really are no sources here, just his writings. That's why I was asking your interpretation of
128:
94:
89:
98:
81:
333:
288:
200:
17:
183:
150:
512:
40:
144:
245:
493:
472:
449:
429:
409:
389:
368:
345:
327:
310:
277:
249:
232:
212:
63:
140:
85:
190:
508:
60:
36:
294:
Every topic on
Knowledge (XXG) must be one for which sources comply with Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability.
487:
241:
176:
263:
465:
208:
77:
69:
156:
445:
425:
405:
385:
228:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
507:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
55:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
461:
364:
341:
306:
482:
298:
323:
273:
204:
441:
421:
401:
381:
224:
115:
360:
337:
302:
318:
287:
What you are saying here seems to be different from the statement on the
284:
268:
480:
per DGG and the addition of independent sources by EricEnfermero.
501:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
378:
list of United States of
America-related deletion discussions
418:
list of
Academics and educators-related deletion discussions
359:
An average academic; no awards, no breakthroughs found.
111:
107:
103:
175:
199:
Nothing to establish him meeting the requirements of
189:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
515:). No further edits should be made to this page.
460:- Has advanced an educational concept known as
398:list of Education-related deletion discussions
8:
438:list of Authors-related deletion discussions
436:Note: This debate has been included in the
416:Note: This debate has been included in the
396:Note: This debate has been included in the
376:Note: This debate has been included in the
435:
415:
395:
375:
334:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (academics)
289:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (academics)
201:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (academics)
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
64:00:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
1:
494:21:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
473:06:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
450:16:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
430:16:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
410:16:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
390:16:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
369:14:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
346:01:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
328:20:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
311:17:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
278:00:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
250:05:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
240:, no evidence of notability.
233:01:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
213:00:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
464:. I've added a few sources.
532:
56:Non-administrator closure
504:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
78:James G. Henderson
70:James G. Henderson
48:The result was
452:
432:
412:
392:
59:
523:
506:
490:
485:
470:
462:3S Understanding
194:
193:
179:
131:
119:
101:
53:
34:
531:
530:
526:
525:
524:
522:
521:
520:
519:
513:deletion review
502:
488:
483:
466:
242:Titanium Dragon
223:, not notable.
136:
127:
92:
76:
73:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
529:
527:
518:
517:
497:
496:
475:
454:
453:
433:
413:
393:
372:
371:
353:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
281:
280:
255:
254:
253:
252:
235:
197:
196:
133:
72:
67:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
528:
516:
514:
510:
505:
499:
498:
495:
492:
491:
486:
479:
476:
474:
471:
469:
468:EricEnfermero
463:
459:
456:
455:
451:
447:
443:
439:
434:
431:
427:
423:
419:
414:
411:
407:
403:
399:
394:
391:
387:
383:
379:
374:
373:
370:
366:
362:
358:
355:
354:
347:
343:
339:
335:
331:
330:
329:
325:
321:
320:
314:
313:
312:
308:
304:
300:
295:
290:
286:
283:
282:
279:
275:
271:
270:
265:
260:
257:
256:
251:
247:
243:
239:
236:
234:
230:
226:
222:
219:
218:
217:
216:
215:
214:
210:
206:
202:
192:
188:
185:
182:
178:
174:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
142:
139:
138:Find sources:
134:
130:
126:
123:
117:
113:
109:
105:
100:
96:
91:
87:
83:
79:
75:
74:
71:
68:
66:
65:
62:
57:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
503:
500:
481:
477:
467:
457:
356:
317:
293:
267:
258:
237:
220:
198:
186:
180:
172:
165:
159:
153:
147:
137:
124:
61:NorthAmerica
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
163:free images
509:talk page
442:• Gene93k
422:• Gene93k
402:• Gene93k
382:• Gene93k
264:WP:BEFORE
37:talk page
511:or in a
205:Eeekster
122:View log
39:or in a
225:Kierzek
169:WP refs
157:scholar
95:protect
90:history
361:LaMona
357:Delete
338:LaMona
303:LaMona
238:Delete
221:Delete
141:Google
99:delete
489:broil
484:Royal
324:talk
274:talk
184:JSTOR
145:books
129:Stats
116:views
108:watch
104:links
16:<
478:Keep
458:Keep
446:talk
426:talk
406:talk
386:talk
365:talk
342:talk
307:talk
299:WP:V
259:Keep
246:talk
229:talk
209:talk
177:FENS
151:news
112:logs
86:talk
82:edit
319:DGG
301:.)
285:DGG
269:DGG
191:TWL
120:– (
448:)
440:.
428:)
420:.
408:)
400:.
388:)
380:.
367:)
344:)
326:)
309:)
276:)
248:)
231:)
211:)
203:.
171:)
114:|
110:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
52:.
444:(
424:(
404:(
384:(
363:(
340:(
322:(
305:(
272:(
244:(
227:(
207:(
195:)
187:·
181:·
173:·
166:·
160:·
154:·
148:·
143:(
135:(
132:)
125:·
118:)
80:(
58:)
54:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.