555:
getting this article deleted. The reason I say you have a bias is because your comment that the article was "ridiculous" above shows your true feelings. "Ridiculous" means "deserving or inviting derision or mockery; absurd." There is nothing in the article to suggest that it's ridiculous, and so the comment you made is meant to deride the article and the editor. It's quite a loaded statement and really doesn't belong in an AfD about a serious article (which this is.) If you misspoke, I understand. Please strike the comment, if it was a mistake, and we'll move on. But right now, you're coming off as aggressively wanting to delete this article for some reason.
625:
477:
What do you mean by "biased"? Nonetheless, being cited in peer-reviewed journal, books or monograph as a contributors to a research in her field is not an evidence of notability. Is she the subject of those books? Being the subject of those books is an evidence of notability and that's not the case
603:
Jesch is president of a learned society, the
English Place-Name Society (in existence since 1923), and there's an inline RS to that claim. Also this: "A more recent example of locating women in prehistory comes from Judith Jesch who wrote the first book-length work devoted entirely to Women in the
554:
who are more of an expert on these things than I am. Maybe I'm wrong, but so far I see the subject of the article as someone who's made a significant contribution and therefore passes. In addition, I find it hard to take your comments as seriously because its clear that you have a bias towards
341:
articles get nominated for deletion through WP:AfD because editors rarely want their articles or contributions deleted. However, editors need not be reminded that
Professors are generally not considered notable, they must meet our primary inclusion criteria and in this case WP:ACADEMIC must be
521:
I agree that assessing academics is difficult. Remember, though, that all of the WP:ACADEMIC are guidelines. We still need to discuss and have more people come to the table. Considering that she's in a field that is fairly small and has been cited as often as she has shows that she has made a
478:
here. For example, if I work on the "toxicity effects of Carica papaya seed flour at graded concentration" another editor working on the same seed may cite me that " Olatunde O. I (2015) concluded that or prove that ..... This indeed does not makes
Olatunde O.I notable or meet
453:
She meets the first part of WP:ACADEMIC as having created a significant body of work. If the nominator had done WP:BEFORE they would have seen that the professor is cited in books, peer reviewed journals, etc, quite often. In addition,
458:
might want to keep out of the rest of the discussion. The categorization of the article in question as "ridiculous" shows that the nominator has a bias. Let others comment on the merits of the article from here on out,
171:
285:
312:
Nominator is mistaken, full professors at research universities are usually notable. Subject meets several of the academic criteria as a leading expert in the
Vikings and also meets the criteria at
235:
124:
433:
165:
260:
337:
I usually don't expect anything different from a "Speed keep", "Strong Keep", "Keep" or "merge" and sometime "redirect" vote from an article creator when their
131:
17:
97:
92:
101:
186:
84:
153:
668:
40:
560:
464:
147:
143:
664:
649:
616:
587:
564:
516:
468:
442:
438:
426:
402:
398:
331:
327:
302:
277:
252:
227:
66:
36:
495:
479:
408:
I just asked you the criteria of the W:ACADEMIC you think the subject of the article met. Which of the
203:
636:
574:
573:. I generalized my comments based on past experience. However, I struck the word "Ridiculous" above.
556:
503:
460:
455:
413:
289:
264:
239:
214:
53:
486:, such as notable awards or significant impact of research (most commonly demonstrated by having an
193:
612:
499:
179:
313:
605:
88:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
663:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
491:
483:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
394:
323:
207:
624:
525:
320:
159:
608:
549:
541:
211:
365:
utländsk arbetande ledamot') of Kungl. Gustav Adolfs
Akademien in Uppsala, Sweden.;
343:
80:
72:
118:
533:
354:
Director of the Centre for the Study of the Viking Age, University of
Nottingham
317:"The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument"
487:
342:
satisfy. If I may ask, which of the WP:ACADEMIC criteria does your
657:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
286:
list of
Academics and educators-related deletion discussions
319:. Click publications here for the list of published works:
569:
I'm not insinuating that this article in particular is
321:
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/english/people/judith.jesch
114:
110:
106:
178:
236:
list of United
Kingdom-related deletion discussions
192:
390:Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
671:). No further edits should be made to this page.
357:Chair of the international Runic Advisory Group
482:. There are several categories of "more" in
8:
522:significant contribution. I'm going to ping
434:list of Authors-related deletion discussions
432:Note: This debate has been included in the
284:Note: This debate has been included in the
259:Note: This debate has been included in the
234:Note: This debate has been included in the
360:President of the English Place-Name Society
350:"ridiculous"? Didn't you read the sources?
261:list of People-related deletion discussions
635:per above arguments. I closed the debate.
431:
283:
258:
233:
494:spells all this out in detail. She fails
210:. Professor are not generally considered
384:Fellow of the Royal Historical Society
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
387:Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries
24:
623:
375:Viking and Medieval Scandinavia
303:23:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
278:23:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
253:23:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
228:23:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
1:
202:Subject of the article fails
650:14:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
617:14:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
588:14:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
565:13:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
517:06:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
469:02:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
443:08:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
427:00:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
403:00:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
371:Nottingham Medieval Studies
332:00:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
67:14:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
688:
369:Editorial Board member of
363:An international fellow (
660:Please do not modify it.
52:. Nomination withdrawn.
32:Please do not modify it.
410:Criteria of WP:ACADEMIC
490:of about 20 or more).
412:do you think she met?
629:Nomination Withdrawn
604:Viking Age (1991)."
48:The result was
500:h-index of only 7
445:
379:Acta Scandinavica
305:
280:
255:
679:
662:
627:
553:
545:
537:
529:
441:
197:
196:
182:
134:
122:
104:
34:
687:
686:
682:
681:
680:
678:
677:
676:
675:
669:deletion review
658:
557:Megalibrarygirl
547:
539:
531:
523:
461:Megalibrarygirl
437:
340:
139:
130:
95:
79:
76:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
685:
683:
674:
673:
653:
652:
620:
619:
597:
596:
595:
594:
593:
592:
591:
590:
472:
471:
447:
446:
429:
392:
391:
388:
385:
382:
367:
361:
358:
355:
348:
347:
338:
307:
306:
281:
256:
200:
199:
136:
75:
70:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
684:
672:
670:
666:
661:
655:
654:
651:
648:
647:
643:
639:
634:
630:
626:
622:
621:
618:
614:
610:
606:
602:
599:
598:
589:
586:
585:
581:
577:
572:
568:
567:
566:
562:
558:
551:
543:
535:
527:
520:
519:
518:
515:
514:
510:
506:
501:
497:
496:WP:ACADEMIC#1
493:
489:
485:
481:
480:WP:ACADEMIC#1
476:
475:
474:
473:
470:
466:
462:
457:
452:
449:
448:
444:
440:
439:North America
435:
430:
428:
425:
424:
420:
416:
411:
407:
406:
405:
404:
400:
396:
389:
386:
383:
380:
376:
372:
368:
366:
362:
359:
356:
353:
352:
351:
345:
336:
335:
334:
333:
329:
325:
322:
318:
315:
311:
304:
301:
300:
296:
292:
287:
282:
279:
276:
275:
271:
267:
262:
257:
254:
251:
250:
246:
242:
237:
232:
231:
230:
229:
226:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
205:
195:
191:
188:
185:
181:
177:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
145:
142:
141:Find sources:
137:
133:
129:
126:
120:
116:
112:
108:
103:
99:
94:
90:
86:
82:
78:
77:
74:
71:
69:
68:
65:
64:
60:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
659:
656:
645:
641:
637:
632:
628:
600:
583:
579:
575:
570:
512:
508:
504:
450:
422:
418:
414:
409:
393:
378:
374:
370:
364:
349:
344:Judith Jesch
316:
309:
308:
298:
294:
290:
273:
269:
265:
248:
244:
240:
223:
219:
215:
201:
189:
183:
175:
168:
162:
156:
150:
140:
127:
81:Judith Jesch
73:Judith Jesch
62:
58:
54:
49:
47:
31:
28:
395:Philafrenzy
324:Philafrenzy
204:WP:ACADEMIC
166:free images
571:ridiculous
526:Dr Blofeld
456:Wikicology
339:ridiculous
665:talk page
609:Rosiestep
550:Rosiestep
542:Montanabw
314:WP:AUTHOR
37:talk page
667:or in a
498:with an
125:View log
39:or in a
492:WP:PROF
488:h-index
484:WP:PROF
459:please.
212:notable
172:WP refs
160:scholar
98:protect
93:history
534:SusunW
208:WP:GNG
144:Google
102:delete
187:JSTOR
148:books
132:Stats
119:views
111:watch
107:links
16:<
633:Keep
613:talk
601:Keep
561:talk
546:and
530:and
465:talk
451:Keep
399:talk
377:and
346:met?
328:talk
310:Keep
206:and
180:FENS
154:news
115:logs
89:talk
85:edit
50:Keep
631:to
194:TWL
123:– (
646:gy
644:l¤
642:c¤
640:ki
638:Wi
615:)
607:--
584:gy
582:l¤
580:c¤
578:ki
576:Wi
563:)
538:,
513:gy
511:l¤
509:c¤
507:ki
505:Wi
502:.
467:)
436:.
423:gy
421:l¤
419:c¤
417:ki
415:Wi
401:)
373:,
330:)
299:gy
297:l¤
295:c¤
293:ki
291:Wi
288:.
274:gy
272:l¤
270:c¤
268:ki
266:Wi
263:.
249:gy
247:l¤
245:c¤
243:ki
241:Wi
238:.
224:gy
222:l¤
220:c¤
218:ki
216:Wi
174:)
117:|
113:|
109:|
105:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
63:gy
61:l¤
59:c¤
57:ki
55:Wi
611:(
559:(
552::
548:@
544::
540:@
536::
532:@
528::
524:@
463:(
397:(
381:.
326:(
198:)
190:·
184:·
176:·
169:·
163:·
157:·
151:·
146:(
138:(
135:)
128:·
121:)
83:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.