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.
This looks like a well referenced article on an academic. However, when you check the sources carefully, a very curious thing emerges. There are reliable independent sources about his parents, but the rest of it is sourced to his own work or his own biographical data (e.g. on his department website). There are no reliable independent sources about him, and as far as I can tell this has always been the case ever since the creation of the article. Virtually the entire thing is drawn from primary sources and independent evidence of significance is simply not provided. This is especially troubling given the current involvement of a
single-purpose account determined to portray the subject in a certain light. Guy (
Help!)
08:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - the current state of the article is of little relevance in determining this; the relevant guideline is
WP:PROF. I don't quite know what profeseur honoraire means in terms of criterion 5, but the Google Scholar results, headlined by works of 187 and 120 citations respectively, suggests that the subject passes criterion 1.
StAnselm (
talk)
11:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep and improve - per
StAnselm reasoning. Also in this context I believe profeseur honoraire means something similar as a distinguished professor, meant to be translated as Honoured professor, so I think criterion 5 applies. The article does need more independent sources however. —
Strongjam (
talk)
12:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)reply
"Professeur honoraire", according to google-translate, is
professor emeritus, which is also what our article here has always said. That's not intrinsically notable...usually just means he was a professor and then retired (no more or less notable than being a professor or similar rank). If he were indeed honored, it would be for some major accomplishment or contribution, which would have secondary sources for the bestowal of the honor and/or highlighting him and his contribution to...whatever.
DMacks (
talk)
16:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Yes, it means emeritus professor. You know that
WP:PROF is only a guideline indicating the kind of person who is likely to be covered by reliable independent sources, yes? At some point those reliable independent sources have to come forward. This article has never had one, but it has had a lot of edits from people who appear to have a close connection to the subject. Guy (
Help!)
22:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)reply
That's not clear from the WP article (which implies that Benedict is just approaching the subject from a different angle) but I have not read the journal article.
StAnselm (
talk)
01:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep and Improve. Benedict has won multiple academic prizes. He has published or co-edited 11 important books and countless articles. Jim1138 has not shown how any of this is puff on the talk page. I have defended the sources -- University Press books that acknowledge his teaching, independent university websites on two continents, articles, etc. Jim's "history" is off here. This article has existed for several years. Recently, Huon came on and deleted huge quantities after a fight with another user on a different page.
RefHistory (
talk)
02:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC) —
RefHistory (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Indeed. Merely having published and taught does not make an academic notable, it sinply means they turned up to work. Guy (
Help!)
06:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - A case of Single-purpose-accounts squeezing blood from the stones to make a subject appear more notable than they actually are. Actual, in-depth sourcing appears to be non-existent.
Tarc (
talk)
02:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)reply
weak keep, while the article has been subject to overly promotional editing, it appears that Benedict's works have been pretty widely cited and Oxford
[3] published work he edited, so he appears to have some clout in the field. It seems possible that with care to the material and how it is presented, it could be possible to build an appropriate article.--
TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom15:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)reply
References
^Norton, Mary Beth; Gerardi, Pamela, eds. (1995). The American Historical Association's Guide to Historical Literature (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. p. 834.
ISBN978-0-19-505727-0.
Keep He was the William Prescott and Annie McClelland Smith Professor of History and Religion at Brown University for many years (until he retired) and professors with named and university chairs automatically pass WP:article. That's not to say that it's a good article (t's not) only that he is WP:Notable.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
02:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. Held a named chair at a major university and was then a full professor (European universities don't have many named chairs) and director of an institute at another major university. Seems to me to meet
WP:PROF. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
14:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - subject meets
WP:PROF in several ways (as explained by others above). Once PROF notability is established, primary sources to fill in biographical details and completely acceptable by long standing convention. --
ThaddeusB (
talk)
15:29, 11 March 2015 (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.
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.
This looks like a well referenced article on an academic. However, when you check the sources carefully, a very curious thing emerges. There are reliable independent sources about his parents, but the rest of it is sourced to his own work or his own biographical data (e.g. on his department website). There are no reliable independent sources about him, and as far as I can tell this has always been the case ever since the creation of the article. Virtually the entire thing is drawn from primary sources and independent evidence of significance is simply not provided. This is especially troubling given the current involvement of a
single-purpose account determined to portray the subject in a certain light. Guy (
Help!)
08:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - the current state of the article is of little relevance in determining this; the relevant guideline is
WP:PROF. I don't quite know what profeseur honoraire means in terms of criterion 5, but the Google Scholar results, headlined by works of 187 and 120 citations respectively, suggests that the subject passes criterion 1.
StAnselm (
talk)
11:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep and improve - per
StAnselm reasoning. Also in this context I believe profeseur honoraire means something similar as a distinguished professor, meant to be translated as Honoured professor, so I think criterion 5 applies. The article does need more independent sources however. —
Strongjam (
talk)
12:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)reply
"Professeur honoraire", according to google-translate, is
professor emeritus, which is also what our article here has always said. That's not intrinsically notable...usually just means he was a professor and then retired (no more or less notable than being a professor or similar rank). If he were indeed honored, it would be for some major accomplishment or contribution, which would have secondary sources for the bestowal of the honor and/or highlighting him and his contribution to...whatever.
DMacks (
talk)
16:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Yes, it means emeritus professor. You know that
WP:PROF is only a guideline indicating the kind of person who is likely to be covered by reliable independent sources, yes? At some point those reliable independent sources have to come forward. This article has never had one, but it has had a lot of edits from people who appear to have a close connection to the subject. Guy (
Help!)
22:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)reply
That's not clear from the WP article (which implies that Benedict is just approaching the subject from a different angle) but I have not read the journal article.
StAnselm (
talk)
01:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep and Improve. Benedict has won multiple academic prizes. He has published or co-edited 11 important books and countless articles. Jim1138 has not shown how any of this is puff on the talk page. I have defended the sources -- University Press books that acknowledge his teaching, independent university websites on two continents, articles, etc. Jim's "history" is off here. This article has existed for several years. Recently, Huon came on and deleted huge quantities after a fight with another user on a different page.
RefHistory (
talk)
02:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC) —
RefHistory (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Indeed. Merely having published and taught does not make an academic notable, it sinply means they turned up to work. Guy (
Help!)
06:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - A case of Single-purpose-accounts squeezing blood from the stones to make a subject appear more notable than they actually are. Actual, in-depth sourcing appears to be non-existent.
Tarc (
talk)
02:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)reply
weak keep, while the article has been subject to overly promotional editing, it appears that Benedict's works have been pretty widely cited and Oxford
[3] published work he edited, so he appears to have some clout in the field. It seems possible that with care to the material and how it is presented, it could be possible to build an appropriate article.--
TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom15:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)reply
References
^Norton, Mary Beth; Gerardi, Pamela, eds. (1995). The American Historical Association's Guide to Historical Literature (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. p. 834.
ISBN978-0-19-505727-0.
Keep He was the William Prescott and Annie McClelland Smith Professor of History and Religion at Brown University for many years (until he retired) and professors with named and university chairs automatically pass WP:article. That's not to say that it's a good article (t's not) only that he is WP:Notable.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
02:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. Held a named chair at a major university and was then a full professor (European universities don't have many named chairs) and director of an institute at another major university. Seems to me to meet
WP:PROF. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
14:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - subject meets
WP:PROF in several ways (as explained by others above). Once PROF notability is established, primary sources to fill in biographical details and completely acceptable by long standing convention. --
ThaddeusB (
talk)
15:29, 11 March 2015 (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.