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 Delete on the basis of clear consensus after long discussion. -- Anthony Bradbury ^"talk" 22:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Benjamin E. Park

Benjamin E. Park (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Subject fails WP:PROF, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:GNG. The coverage provided is either not independent or are mere mentions. While the subject has been mentioned elsewhere I don't think any of that passes WP:SIGCOV. I don't know what notability is connoted by mentions in Patheos, either. This article was deleted before and simply re-created, ostensibly as advertisement as the article features external links to the subject's NN publications. Chris Troutman ( talk) 17:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 17:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 17:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 17:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 17:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I'm not 100% convinced that he shouldn't qualify as notable, but regardless, he was overwhelmingly rejected as non-notable less than a year ago and this article shouldn't have been re-created so soon. Orser67 ( talk) 18:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete - almost there, but not quite enough for WP:PROF. (E.g. if he was editor of one of those journals he would qualify, but he is merely on the editorial board.) St Anselm ( talk) 18:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep - A deletion doesn't stand for all time and in fact that discussion specifically held only for deletion until such time as Mr. Park has a book within his discipline of American history published. Park has subsequently (2017) become published about nationalism in the U.S. by Cambridge Univ. Press (and, furthermore, another of his tomes, this one about Nauvoo, Ill.-period Mormonism, has become accepted for publication by the major publisher of U.S. historical tomes Norton.) If such doesn't satisfy publishing concerns I can't fathom what realistically could.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 20:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• As was established last time, having published a book that was reviewed does not make one notable. The fact that you re-created a deleted article not once, but twice, indicates that you likely have no objectivity on this matter. Chris Troutman ( talk) 20:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I think if there were multiple reviews each of multiple books, it would make the subject notable per WP:AUTHOR. But a newly published book and another one in the works, without reviews yet, are not enough. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• I've put notice of this discussion here: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias#Benjamin_Park .-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 21:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I'm not seeing any significant changes since the last AfD. Publishing a book is nowhere near enough to get an academic past WP:PROF. We would be looking for multiple lengthy reviews and/or significant impact on the field. I'm sure Park's American Nationalisms is a fine work, but as it was published just three months ago, it's unlikely to have either.

As a general rule, assistant professors are very rarely found to be notable, so @ Hodgdon's secret garden:, if you are interested in improving Wikipedia's coverage of Mormon scholars, I would start with people higher up the academic career ladder. I'm not convinced we have a systemic bias there, but it wouldn't hurt. –  Joe ( talk) 21:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete.There's only one book by a major academic publisher of research-level books. Norton is primarily a publisher of text books and general interest books (for evidence see its website [1]). Furthermore, the source given for it is just the subject's own blog, and it only says a contract for it was signed, and admits that the book is only half written, not finished, and not finally accepted, and not published. Two actual published books by highest level publishers is the standard for tenure used by the most prestigious research universities in the humanities, (lower level ones tend to accept one book and a few papers). That's the level of distinction which indicates the person is not only influential in their field, but is expected to remain influential, and to remain sufficiently influential to be able to attract other first-rate scholars. I think it's fully enough to always meet WP:PROF unless there are other factors. One can't expect reviews until actual publication, but a book accepted by Cambridge University Press is certain to get such reviews -- the same sort of reasoning we use for major works in production by major companies artists and performers of various sorts. But the academic record is not yet sufficient for WP:PROF. It was not a wise decision to try the article again at this point in his career,. It would have had at least a chance if it had waited till the 2nd book was published and reviewed. Joe Roe's advice to start at the top to increase the coverage of Mormon historians is just right. It's the right advice for any under-covered subject here. DGG ( talk ) 21:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC) reply

1. wp:PROF itself clearly says it does not in any way rein in wp:GNG. What this guideline does is to provide a means to document notability in cases where a prominent academic lacks sufficient treatments within the mainstream media.
2. This blp subject's case clearly is not that he's reached advanced status within Academe but that he's obviously notable as an wp:author owing his place within Mormon letters, as an essayist/public intellectual often sought out as an opinion maker, and because of his next book-length work of ostensibly "popular" history that's being acquired by, yes, the trade press Norton, which allows editors to presume this historian/author will gain even more notability in the near future. See this article about historians and "mere"(?) trade presses (which Norton's not so shabby of one. From Norton's website):

   "... The Nortons soon expanded their program...acquiring manuscripts by celebrated academics from America and abroad and entering the fields of philosophy, music, and psychology, in which they published acclaimed works by Bertrand Russell, Paul Henry Lang, and Sigmund Freud (as his primary American publisher).

   "... Since those early days, W. W. Norton & Company has consistently published books that reflect their social moment and resonate well beyond it. Some of the era-defining books published by Norton include The Feminine Mystique ... A Clockwork Orange ... Thirteen Days, Robert F. Kennedy’s firsthand account of the Cuban Missile Crisis; Present at the Creation, by Dean Acheson ... ; Liar’s Poker, which launched Michael Lewis’s decades-long chronicle of Wall Street’s greed and hubris; and The 9/11 Commission Report ....

   The company...continues to print the work of some of the world’s most influential voices. Nobel Prize winners include Nadine Gordimer, Seamus Heaney, Eric Kandel, Paul Krugman, Edmund Phelps, Joseph Stiglitz, and Harold Varmus; Pulitzer Prize winners include Dean Acheson, Jared Diamond, Rita Dove, John Dower, Stephen Dunn, Erik Erikson, Eric Foner, Annette Gordon-Reed, Stephen Greenblatt, Maxine Kumin, Joseph Lash, William McFeely, John Matteson, Edmund Morgan, and William Taubman.

   "In recent decades, Norton’s national bestsellers have included books by Diane Ackerman, Andrea Barrett (also a National Book Award winner), Vincent Bugliosi, Andre Dubus III, Sebastian Junger, Michael Lewis, Nicole Krauss, Mary Roach, Jonathan Spence, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Sean Wilentz, Edward O. Wilson, and Fareed Zakaria. ..."

   -- "Norton History"

   -- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 02:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Per the existing consensus, insufficient justification has been provided for why the last AfD shouldn't stand. Hodgdon's secret garden argued strenously for "Keep" in the first AfD, didn't like the result, and recreated the article 6 months later. They should be admonished at a minimum. The participants in the first AfD also ought to be pinged. Abductive Xxanthippe Johnpacklambert Bearian Uhooep Peterkingiron Narky_Blert (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 22:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment. {{ ping}} received. I have little to add to what I said last time round, except to say this. IMO 'Best Graduate Paper Award to Benjamin E. Park for "Early Mormonism and the Paradoxes of Democratic Religiosity in Jacksonian America," written last year at the University of Cambridge' bears no relation to the University of Cambridge. To me, as a Cambridge graduate, that claim rings all sorts of alarm bells. Notably, in UK we do not use "graduate" as an adjective. "Graduate Paper" makes no sense to me at all. Neither does that University award any such prize. Narky Blert ( talk) 23:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Narky (I mean Blert, per British usage), I accept ur assertion uv graduated from a college at Cambridge. Kudos and well wishes in whatsoever ur endeavors (which may be or end up quite substantial, despite ur seemingly habitual tone of a mere crank.)-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 01:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Question to User:Narky Blert: I'm just curious. Do folks at Cambridge use the word since to mean "because" or only in also its meaning of "after"?

The fact is, the blp subject got his M.Hist.-"with distinction", via his research, from Cambridge Univ. -- the one that's in England -- a few years back. Since Owing to the U.S. being kinda low rent, Yank academics with just such a degree (note that he already had a M.Sc. in historical theology from the Univ. of Edinburgh) routinely designate it as a "PhD"[!] when they return to the United States. And, instead of his doing what would be considered the stand-up thing and get a real academic job in the U.S., the bio's subject stays a grad. student (sorry for the usage of graduate as an adj. there) in Cambridge. But, he accepts a "post" under Brigham Young Univ. prof. Flueman, who'd been asked to start up a review journal for the new subdiscipline of Mormon Sstudies at the Maxwell Institute. See link for mention @ the Max. I. of awards given to both doctor Flueman for his first published book at the Univ. of N.Carolina Press and to our yeoman Park, twice that year, for a paper and an unpublished graduate paper, in the subdiscipline of Mormon letters/academics. Does that clear things up for you?

But, anyway, I may as well now go ahead and complete this story: While helping Flueman edit Mormon Studies Review (and writing a fair number of reviews of some academic press-published book that he publishes elsewhere than Mo.Stud.Rev.) the subject hangs around at your alma mater as a lecturer and supervisor in the history dept. while he earns a (sic; um /"another"? <shrugs>) doctorate, then takes a "named" visiting scholar gig at the U. of Missouri in the States. Then gets an assist. prof. post at Sam Houston State. By then, I mean now, he has a dozen or so articles pubbed in peer-reviwed journals. His first book published at Cambridge Univ. Press.

Mo.Stud.Rev.'s editor Flueman, PhD from U.(Cheese)Wis., has also pubbed papers and is getting his 2nd book pub'd at Ox. Univ. Press. (...Fair enough. That's why " J. Spencer Fluhman" is the title of a blp here @ Wikipedia; but, Ben Park is a full editor somewhere, too: [Added later: among co-editors] of Mormon studies monographs published by Fairleigh Dickenson Univ. Press in N.J. and he has received as many as a half dozen total awards in in that same academic area in the span of only the past few years.)-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 20:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)--amended.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 21:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Along with his book he's pub'd a dozen peer-rev'd papers and another dozen peer-rev'd book reviews.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 20:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Reply to question. @ Hodgdon's secret garden: A good and a fair question. In British English, "since" is sometimes a synonym for "because". "He fell over, since he had dropped his walking stick" (in U.S. English, "walking cane") is good British English. When I trained as a patent agent, I was taught never to write "since" except in relation to dates because of its ambiguity between different variants of the English language. (Note my refusal there to split an infinitive!)

The American use is cane, not walking cane. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC) reply

As a reverse example, in British English "comprises" means "consists of". ("Beethoven's Opus 18 comprises six string quartets.") In patent law, "comprises" means "contains or consists of". In U.S. usage, it can more broadly mean "includes". U.S. usage also seems to have "comprises of", which is not British English and to me looks ugly.

In Wiki, I try to avoid constructions like those; and if I find them, to edit them to ones with which all English-speakers can agree. Narky Blert ( talk) 21:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Tiny cites on GS, No improvement since last AfD so salt. Xxanthippe ( talk) 23:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC). reply

There is improvement. There is a substantial published book. He might become notable in the future. DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete. H-index is still in the single digits. Advocacy for a particular person (since I can't see how this is advocacy for an article with single digit page views) isn't sufficient. Abductive ( reasoning) 23:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete. One new book without any published reviews isn't enough to change my opinion from the last time around. — David Eppstein ( talk) 03:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete No - he's written one book, he's written some book reviews. Has no profile on Google scholar. Not even close. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 11:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete. WP:TOOSOON for this recent PhD (2014) assitant professor. Fails WP:PROF. He does have some coverage - [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] (some interviews, some mentions of his writings, Newsweek mentions a blog post by him) - however this does not rise up to WP:SIGCOV/ WP:GNG. Looking at what he's doing it seem he will be notable sometime if he continues - but not at the moment. Icewhiz ( talk) 11:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Icewhiz, GNG. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete Park clearly fails academic notability guidelines. Maybe after his two in progress books get published (assuming that ever happens) things will be different, but at this time no. I would have to say in general Wikipedia is faily good at having article on the main scholars of Mormon studies. How well written and comprehensive some of these articles are, on people like David F. Holland or Hugh Nibley is another question, but we have the articles on most of the truly major contributors. Park has yet to produce the significant level of articles and books to make him a truly major contributor, despite the criticisms of some of his ideas that have been lobbed by Hancock and Hamblin. This article too much relies on coverage of things where Park is an incidental, non-defining member of a large group of people, and also too heavily relies on quotes from Park's own work. None of it adds up to actual significant coverage of a level to pass the general notability guidelines. Response articles to a book review by an individual do not count as the type of substantial 3rd party coverage of that individual that consititutes indepth coverage for GNG purposes, and the rest we have that is indepdent 3rd party, like the Salt Lake Tribune articles on the reworking of the set up of the BYU Maxwell Incident say almost nothing about Park, basically they just name check his existence. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC) reply

A prospective article needs two reliable sources specifically about it. That's it. There's no seperate tracks w rgd this profession or that. Ben Park has a half dozen articles that are reliable sources which are specific to agreeing with, putting nuance to, or countering his--without co-author--views. According to foundational principles of the project, Wikipedians should be encouraged to create articles as often as possible whenever that threshhold is met. That builds the project. Instead what we have is people who try to align Wikipedia with what goes on in the academy (see !votes above by user:DGG and by user:Johnpacklambert). Most simply put, if this blp subject was an author who was not an academic and there were half dozen articles in RS, by people with their own WP blp's no less, entirely devoted to taking up positions she champions (of which Johnpacklambert briefly alludes), such notoriety alone would guarantee notability. Instead, deletionist cabals hover around afd's who but glance at an article for two or three seconds blithely mumbling "not notable" or grabbing whatever acronym seems handy. (Um, wp:TOOSOON says film/actors s without two specific media mentions aren't sufficiently notable; what's that got to do with a blog co-founder and author of essays, etc., sought out for quotes a number of times by the MSM, who's published a major book?) ...or their sniffing about good usages per the Fowler brothers or godknowswhatelse!-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 01:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC) reply

A prospective article needs two reliable sources specifically about it. That's it. – how on earth did you come to that conclusion? To pass the GNG, we need significant coverage, and JPL has eloquently explained why that threshold isn't met in this case. WP:PROF provides an alternative set of criteria that is easier for academics to pass, because they are rarely the subject of significant biographical coverage. But unfortunately Park does not seem to meet that either. There is no conspiracy; we're just trying to apply fair and consistent standards for inclusion. –  Joe ( talk) 11:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC) reply

OK, user:Joe Roe, I'm game. My sense there exist deletionist cabals owes to my observations that so many glance-and-call-out-"delete" !votes become weighted w/in closings. Slam dunks to delete? Really?. Huh? My encapsulation of notability guidelines was pretty fair. But, fine, let us get more into the weeds then.

With a tip of my hat to the Bio's section @ wp:TOOSOON:

"an individual is presumed to be notable 'if they have been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject', and expands that 'if depth-of-coverage is not substantial, then multiple less-than-substantial independent sources may be needed to prove notability'". It re-states that coverage 'must be more than trivial and must be reliable'".

If the above is the criterion, how can ppl give a quick glance at Park's blp and come to "delete", after noting:

1. Citationd to themselves notable figures who address an in-depth intellectual thesis of Park's at great length in multiple reliable sources. This type of coverage is "trivial"? Says who!
2. Threshold #1 already met, fact is, WP editors are even given discretion to judge by gads of less-than-substantial sourcing (that are not merely trivial). What about the MSM coverages regarding the subject's new media platforms presenting his research/ideas as well as his trad. media op-eds/research papers & reviews published in journals?

IMHO to discount #1/huff at #2 seem deletionist ad hoc tools wielded to achieve what's their real objective which is to bypass WP's actual guidelines about media coverages so they can resort to their preferred mode of merely zeroing in on formal academic statuses. But, you know, it is what it is.- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 21:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- I see two problems: TOOSOON and COI. Having acted as an academic referee is something that is known only to the referee and the editor. I thus suspect that this is an autobiography. Is that what the blacklist tag is highlighting? Secondly, this is a young academic who got his doctorate only about 4 years ago, and appearsto have published little. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC) reply

erratum - Somewhere above I equated a Ox-/-Bridge MPhil(by research) to a phd Statesside. I just read that unlike the sixties/seventies and before, nowadays "securing posts" in academia with such a degree is quite rare. [9]-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 02:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC) reply

• • Some people put lists of the journals they referee for in their cvs. Not that that affects any of the rest of your comment. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC) reply

user:Peterkingiron: I'm not him (oh...and, e.g., neither am I Nathan Oman, Matthew Grow, etc., to whose early stubs I've also contributed. Nor am I Dan Peterson (C.f.: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture. Ha ha ha, although (even though I'm Buddhist) I wouldn't mind being any of the four. See Being John Malkovitch.) Full disclosure: I've not read this blp subject's (2017) American Nationalisms: Imagining Union in the Age of Revolutions (one doesn't need to have, to help contribute to a tertiary source) but I have read--well, OK, posts on Park's web platforms, also a number of his opinion columns and a smattering of his papers.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 21:37, 4 March 2018 (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.