Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Parr


 * 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   keep. Consensus appears to be that the subject meets author and professor notability criteria. Libster's concerns can be fixed by editing and Stalwart111 appears to have changed his mind. v/r - TP 01:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Adrian Parr

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article looks to have been copy-pasted to WP with no prior WP:AFC involvement. I tried to clean it up a bit (fixing sub-headings and basic formatting) but I still have serious concerns about notability in general. The "sources" provided are mostly bare links to conference guest speaker profiles, all almost exactly the same. They seem to have been provided by the subject or the subject's staff, so I can't see how they could qualify as "multiple" or "reliable". The article itself seems to have been created by one of the subject's students. While not a reason for deletion, it does offer a motivation for creation. I'm not seeing enough critical response to the subject's published work to meet WP:AUTHOR. Stalwart 111  04:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep It needs to be further edited, but she meets WP:PROF as an expert on Deleuze and also  WP:AUTHOR. WThe actual book reviews should be found, but with books published by MIT Press ( that one is in over 750 libraries, a/c worldcat), Columbia Univ Press (2 different books) , Edinburgh UP, Mellen, Routledge, they will be there.  Very few academic authors publish more than 1 book, and 2 is enough for tenure at the highest quality universities; she has 6. See WorldCat DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Always keen to be proven wrong, I kept at it (and at it, and at it) and finally found her profile here, on one of the UC (sub college?) pages and I think I've proven myself wrong. It provides a list of references for her published works, the sort that I think would allow her to meet WP:AUTHOR as you suggest above. Your thoughts? If it confirms what I think it confirms then I will inform those who have !voted below (who seem to have based their opinions on the same lack of information as my original nom) and will withdraw this AFD. Stalwart 111  22:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 02:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 02:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 02:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 02:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete created by a single purpose editor. looks like a blatant WP:AUTOBIO. LibStar (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Certainly much puffery here but that is no reason to delete. However cites in GS appear to be 114, 38, 15, 14..? This is not enough to pass WP:Prof. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk).
 * This isn't the biological sciences. that sort of citation count in the humanities is very respectable. Anyway, that would be WP:PROF.
 * How about WP:Author? the nominator, who saw the reviews, very fairly asked me to comment on them. They seem to very clearly meet the requirements for that category. (FWIW, I think that  attempts to inflate the importance of someone mildly notable tend to have the exact opposite effect. We reasonably enough consciously or unconsciously discount articles that seem promotional beyond a certain point. In that connection, an i.p. editor just tried to help the article by adding an entire section about one invited seminar talk she gave. That's exactly the way to harm the article further, though I doubt such was the intent. I removed it & warned the editor; while I was at it, I removed another section on an individual invited talk.    DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "that sort of citation count in the humanities is very respectable." I'm not sure about that. In theology it would be stunning, but in the trendy field she operates in I am not convinced. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC).
 * Yeah, I was originally iffy about PROF and AUTHOR and I still think PROF is a stretch. However, her college profile lists a whole bunch of reviews for her published work, beyond what we tend to expect for AUTHOR. If they are legit (and being from a college, I can't see how they wouldn't be) they suggest a fairly in-depth critical analysis of her published work. So I'm now a bit iffy about my own nom. Stalwart 111  22:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems trite to debate PROF and AUTHOR regarding a person who does both. Parr authors text as a PROF in the field of both academe and sustainability.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opensourceanth (talk • contribs) 19:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)  — Opensourceanth (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Not at all - they are distinct criteria and it is possible for someone to pass one and fail the other but thus still pass. I write things too (see <-- just there) but that doesn't mean I pass WP:AUTHOR. Likewise, I sometimes educate, but I certainly wouldn't pass WP:PROF. The subject might do both but only be WP:NOTABLE as one or the other. This is about a threshold for inclusion. If it is determined that the subject meets one or the other, that doesn't prevent the other parts of her work from being mentioned in the article, as long as any claims can be verified by reliable sources. Stalwart 111  23:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I do not feel that this article should be deleted. I am the person who helped add it to wikipedia. I was logged in as maryamfotouhi as I created the article. My friend Maryam asked me to help her because she didnt understand how to add the article to wikipedia herself. I am a web developer and was able to understand the use of tags quite easily and so I helped her. I would not consider myself a single purpose editor, I'm just here to help. After reading the discussions and the criteria for general notability, I feel that Adrian Parr does qualify as she has multiple published works. My intentions here were NOT to create a spammy article. My goal in this discussion is to help improve the article so it won't be deleted. Please help me to improve the article so that it better meets the critera to be acceptable by wikipedia. If there are things throughout the article that are "Bad Practice" please help me by removing them so that we can improve the article. Zgravity (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC) — Zgravity (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * you haven't actually addressed how any notability criterion are met. LibStar (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, how can you claim to not be a single purpose editor, when the account you have referenced has only one edit, the creation of the article itself? Stubbleboy 04:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * technically, yes, at this point, you can call me a single purpose editor, considering I have only edited/published one article. But everyone had to have only had one article created/published at some point, and I can't image how only having one article edited/created is cause for deletion. As user MRX pointed out, the tone/puffery can be toned down through editing and should not be the cause of deletion either. Clearly, Parr meets WP:AUTHOR - multiple published works and multiple reviews from legitimate sources as Phil Bridger pointed out below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zgravity (talk • contribs) 03:10, 31 January 2013‎


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 03:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Numerous reliable sources are available, including book reviews, so the subject more than meets the notability guidelines of WP:AUTHOR. There are also independent sources with which to meet WP:ACADEMIC. Concerns about the article's promotional tone, puffery and SPA contributors can be addressed by editing, and are not valid policy-based reasons for deletion. - MrX 04:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * which specific criterion of WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC is met? LibStar (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1. The person is regarded as an important figure..."Parr's illuminating interrogation of that tactic [Sustainability] is a triumph of content over style."
 * 1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
 * - MrX 05:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But what about criteria for WP:AUTHOR? I found four works listed on Open Library.  Each work is reviewed on Amazon by a number of different professors and professionals.  I'm still not convinced that this alone meets criteria for WP:AUTHOR.  I'm also not sure of how you could regard this specific individual as an important figure based upon your quote  "Parr's illuminating interrogation of that tactic [Sustainability] is a triumph of content over style."  Stubbleboy 05:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have not looked at any of the Amazon consumer reviews. The reviews I found were in reliable sources such as symploke and The Guardian. The quote I provided was not really central to my argument; it was merely an example to show that the source coverage of Parr is non-trivial. - MrX 13:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * symploke looks like a Sokal-type hoax. The Guardian review is useful, if short, but multiple independent sources are required. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC).


 * Keep per WP:AUTHOR. Further reviews of Parr's works can be found at, , (one of three books reviewed), , http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4k89d2h0, http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1958809&show=abstract. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Which part of the criteria mentioned at WP:AUTHOR are you saying she meets? Stubble</b><b style="color:gray">boy</b> 05:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Part 4. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.