677:
that reviewed his book, not articles he has published. "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." is what I summarize as being an expert in his subject. The independent reliable sources are: 1/ the peer reviewers and editors who accepted and published the 4 books--academic books these days normally need 3 or 4 positive reviews to be accepted for publication. 2/The book reviewers writing in significant academic journals 3/the people who have cited the books--very difficult to find in this subject comprehensively, but the GScholar results are indicative. 4/the hundreds of librarians and faculty advisors in academic libraries who have selected the books for purchase--how libraries do this varies, but at least one person in each must have positively selected the book for each of them. (as a guide, at the most academically stringent universities , the basic criterion for permanent tenure is 2 books; at most universities it can be fewer. From the way the article was written, I carelessly assumed at first there was 1 book with 1 significant review only, in which case i would have said delete. Fortunately I actually looked at the sources before giving my first assumptions.
825:. Where you wrote: "How is this notable or memorable? I say that is it no different than any of the other myriad women's rights caterwauling that's been going on for the last several hundred years. No different than an article on 'Molly's bra burning at the Bush second inauguration party, 2004, Salem, Mass.' Sourcing seems a bit suspect as well. Rubbish." --
650:- sorry, DGG, just to clarify the above, are you saying he's written one book "Scotland and the Thirty Years' War", with reviews in Journal of Military history, etc; or that he's written a selection of books and articles including "Journal of Military History", "Scottish Economic & Social History", etc? (The latter would pass the broad definition for
439:
443:
357:
I have placed a stub tag on the article. The article describes the subject as a "reader": this is a senior academic post in a UK university. The award of this status by his university ought to be sufficient to demonstate his notability. WE are not talking about a school teacher who writes a couple
182:
Unfortunately, the notability of the subject has not been demonstrated. There are many historians and scholars out there and this article says nothing of how its subject stands apart from the countless mass of past or present "scholars." I would suggest that the author of this article do a bit more
676:
He was written 3 books and co-edited another. Of these books, I have found multiple reviews for one of them--I have not looked comprehensively for find reviews for the other ones, partly because what I found already is I think sufficient in that direction. The four journals mentioned are journals
817:
599:
627:; the copyright is in his name. BTW, G News archive is sometimes helpful in finding book reviews for US books, but otherwise is useless in dealing with WP:PROF, as contrasted with WP:BIO, for which it is invaluable.
391:
criterion 5, to which I assume you were referring. Barring some specific evidence of the
University of St Andrews being a contra-example, "reader" is generally a position below "Chair" or "Distinguished Professor". -
151:
303:, borderline "speedy keep" because of its inference of lack of good faith in nomination, such lack which can be inferred by the obvious (by the wording of the nomination) lack of the nominator's doing any
274:
577:- Richard, I note you are the creator of the article and as such could possibly have valuable insight. How do you say this article meets "all requirements for notability and verifiability"? -
812:
654:
and possibly also criterion 1, the former may or may not.) Also, when you say "expert status", are you referring to any particular policy? I'm not aware of it being a criterion under
802:
112:
498:
appears to fall short of criterion 5, there's no sufficent mass of citation provided to suggest he meets criterion 1, and no suggestion that he'd meet any other criterion.) -
807:
248:
203:
145:
822:
446:) at Google News doesn't turn up much that would point towards notability as an expert on the history of Scotland who is frequently cited in the media.
830:
763:
561:
826:
759:
557:
438:#1 is not satisfied. There is no evidence of notability under any other item in WP:PROF. Searching for "Steve Murdoch" + "Scotland" (
17:
85:
80:
317:
89:
466:. LP works in an obscure subject that may be not be expected to garner many cites. Info about library holdings would be useful.
72:
735:
I believe we now have sufficient evidence of his academic notability, which was not present at the time
Torkmann nominated.
693:
Thankyou for the clarification. I've changed my opinion above accordingly to "weak keep" on the basis of your arguments. -
490:
through multiple significant independent reliable sources, and the article does not make any claim against any criterion of
166:
133:
882:
36:
740:
285:
259:
451:
341:
881:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
698:
663:
582:
532:
503:
397:
127:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
367:
867:
834:
788:
767:
758:, Remember it is the topic that is, or, is not notable, not the state of the article at any given time. --
744:
736:
727:
702:
688:
667:
638:
611:
586:
565:
536:
507:
495:
475:
455:
426:
401:
384:
371:
345:
323:
308:
289:
281:
263:
255:
238:
220:
218:
192:
123:
54:
447:
337:
844:
DGG convinced me. Reader in this case does indicated a notable person, all requirements are thus met.
818:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Metropolitan Police
Department of the District of Columbia Chiefs
655:
651:
524:
491:
388:
723:
471:
313:
173:
49:
694:
659:
578:
528:
499:
393:
159:
304:
784:
422:
363:
188:
76:
607:
414:
211:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
435:
300:
845:
234:
333:
139:
719:
553:
467:
556:
are the same person. Both are wikistalking me and nominating my articles for deletion. --
548:
Meets all requirements for notability and verifiability. I have a sneaking feeling that
625:
notable, though I would accept Senior Reader in a major research university. But this p
520:
487:
780:
684:
634:
549:
418:
184:
68:
60:
362:
lists 37 works by him from 1996 to 2008: this should be ample tp prove notability.
603:
106:
230:
519:- per arguments of DGG below, he appears to narrowly pass either or both of
359:
679:
629:
307:. Request someone with access to citation databases review the subject's
779:
evidence of notability. Many of your articles do not. No offense.
336:
doesn't bring up many citations. 15, 9, 8, 7, 7 are the top items.
775:
But also remember that the article must at least demonstrate some
183:
research on his topics before starting articles of dubious value.
875:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
602:, don't see evidence how it meets specific criteria of WP:PROF.
799:
It looks like a combination of ignorance and harassment to me:
813:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Hiram
Boardman Conibear
275:
list of
Academics and educators-related deletion discussions
803:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Richard H. Sylvester
102:
98:
94:
158:
808:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/W. L. Shurtleff
823:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Suffrage Hike
172:
299:because of presumption of likely satisfaction of
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
885:). No further edits should be made to this page.
249:list of Scotland-related deletion discussions
8:
658:or elsewhere but I stand to be corrected. -
204:list of History-related deletion discussions
269:
243:
198:
486:- There's no evidence of Murdoch passing
273:: This debate has been included in the
247:: This debate has been included in the
202:: This debate has been included in the
434:. The low citation count suggests that
360:Royal Historical Society bibliography
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
494:. (Specifically, his position of
417:at the U St. Andrews will help. -
24:
827:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
760:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
558:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
1:
868:10:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
835:05:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
789:03:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
768:03:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
387:suggests it does not satisfy
358:of books! The (open access)
55:00:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
745:16:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
728:05:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
703:04:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
689:03:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
668:03:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
639:03:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
621:I do not accept Reader as
612:02:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
587:02:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
566:02:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
537:04:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
508:01:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
476:23:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
456:19:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
427:17:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
402:01:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
372:17:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
346:12:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
324:10:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
290:06:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
264:03:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
239:03:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
221:02:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
193:01:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
383:- A reading of the article
902:
648:Request for clarification
878:Please do not modify it.
517:Weak Keep (vote changed)
32:Please do not modify it.
598:only limited coverage.
413:: As per Bongo. Maybe
385:Reader (academic rank)
334:Google Scholar search
309:full publication list
718:per Dust and DGG.--
442:) or + "history" (
44:The result was
737:Shawn in Montreal
322:
315:
292:
282:Shawn in Montreal
278:
266:
256:Shawn in Montreal
252:
223:
207:
893:
880:
864:
861:
858:
855:
852:
849:
448:CronopioFlotante
338:CronopioFlotante
316:
312:
311:for references.
279:
253:
214:
208:
177:
176:
162:
110:
92:
34:
901:
900:
896:
895:
894:
892:
891:
890:
889:
883:deletion review
876:
862:
859:
856:
853:
850:
847:
527:criterion 1. -
320:
212:
119:
83:
67:
64:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
899:
897:
888:
887:
871:
870:
839:
838:
837:
820:
815:
810:
805:
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
791:
770:
748:
747:
730:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
705:
695:DustFormsWords
671:
670:
660:DustFormsWords
642:
641:
615:
614:
592:
591:
590:
589:
579:DustFormsWords
569:
568:
542:
541:
540:
539:
529:DustFormsWords
511:
510:
500:DustFormsWords
479:
458:
429:
407:
406:
405:
404:
394:DustFormsWords
375:
374:
351:
350:
349:
348:
327:
326:
318:
293:
267:
241:
224:
180:
179:
116:
63:
58:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
898:
886:
884:
879:
873:
872:
869:
866:
865:
843:
840:
836:
832:
828:
824:
821:
819:
816:
814:
811:
809:
806:
804:
801:
800:
798:
797:
790:
786:
782:
778:
774:
771:
769:
765:
761:
757:
754:
753:
752:
751:
750:
749:
746:
742:
738:
734:
731:
729:
725:
721:
717:
714:
713:
704:
700:
696:
692:
691:
690:
686:
682:
681:
675:
674:
673:
672:
669:
665:
661:
657:
653:
649:
646:
645:
644:
643:
640:
636:
632:
631:
626:
624:
620:
617:
616:
613:
609:
605:
601:
597:
594:
593:
588:
584:
580:
576:
573:
572:
571:
570:
567:
563:
559:
555:
551:
547:
544:
543:
538:
534:
530:
526:
522:
518:
515:
514:
513:
512:
509:
505:
501:
497:
493:
489:
485:
484:
480:
477:
473:
469:
465:
463:
459:
457:
453:
449:
445:
441:
437:
433:
430:
428:
424:
420:
416:
412:
409:
408:
403:
399:
395:
390:
386:
382:
379:
378:
377:
376:
373:
369:
365:
364:Peterkingiron
361:
356:
353:
352:
347:
343:
339:
335:
331:
330:
329:
328:
325:
321:
314:
310:
306:
302:
298:
294:
291:
287:
283:
276:
272:
268:
265:
261:
257:
250:
246:
242:
240:
236:
232:
228:
225:
222:
219:
216:
215:
205:
201:
197:
196:
195:
194:
190:
186:
175:
171:
168:
165:
161:
157:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
135:
132:
129:
125:
122:
121:Find sources:
117:
114:
108:
104:
100:
96:
91:
87:
82:
78:
74:
70:
69:Steve Murdoch
66:
65:
62:
61:Steve Murdoch
59:
57:
56:
53:
52:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
877:
874:
846:
841:
776:
772:
755:
732:
715:
678:
647:
628:
622:
618:
595:
574:
545:
516:
482:
481:
461:
460:
431:
410:
380:
354:
296:
295:Provisional
270:
244:
226:
213:Juliancolton
210:
199:
181:
169:
163:
155:
148:
142:
136:
130:
120:
50:
45:
43:
31:
28:
777:prima facie
656:WP:ACADEMIC
652:WP:ACADEMIC
623:necessarily
525:WP:ACADEMIC
492:WP:ACADEMIC
389:WP:ACADEMIC
146:free images
720:Epeefleche
554:Drawn Some
468:Xxanthippe
51:Black Kite
773:Response.
716:Week Keep
305:WP:BEFORE
229:per nom.
781:Torkmann
550:Torkmann
419:BalthCat
415:his page
185:Torkmann
113:View log
756:Comment
604:LibStar
575:Comment
436:WP:PROF
381:Comment
301:WP:PROF
152:WP refs
140:scholar
86:protect
81:history
596:Delete
496:reader
483:Delete
432:Delete
231:Qworty
227:Delete
124:Google
90:delete
863:Focus
685:talk
635:talk
600:gnews
319:matic
167:JSTOR
128:books
107:views
99:watch
95:links
16:<
842:Keep
831:talk
785:talk
764:talk
741:talk
733:Keep
724:talk
699:talk
664:talk
619:Keep
608:talk
583:talk
562:talk
552:and
546:Keep
533:talk
521:WP:N
504:talk
488:WP:N
472:talk
464:Keep
462:Weak
452:talk
444:here
440:here
423:talk
411:Keep
398:talk
368:talk
355:Keep
342:talk
297:keep
286:talk
271:Note
260:talk
245:Note
235:talk
209:-- –
200:Note
189:talk
160:FENS
134:news
103:logs
77:talk
73:edit
46:keep
680:DGG
630:DGG
523:or
174:TWL
111:– (
833:)
787:)
766:)
743:)
726:)
701:)
687:)
666:)
637:)
610:)
585:)
564:)
535:)
506:)
474:)
454:)
425:)
400:)
370:)
344:)
332:A
288:)
277:.
262:)
251:.
237:)
217:|
206:.
191:)
154:)
105:|
101:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
79:|
75:|
48:.
860:m
857:a
854:e
851:r
848:D
829:(
783:(
762:(
739:(
722:(
697:(
683:(
662:(
633:(
606:(
581:(
560:(
531:(
502:(
478:.
470:(
450:(
421:(
396:(
366:(
340:(
284:(
280:—
258:(
254:—
233:(
187:(
178:)
170:·
164:·
156:·
149:·
143:·
137:·
131:·
126:(
118:(
115:)
109:)
71:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.