Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan J. Hawkins


 * 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   no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 19:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Alan J. Hawkins

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Does not meet notability standard for academics. Barely sourced; one footnote for The Deseret News only gives a date (there should be an online link to this). Google returns only directory-style listings. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: Nomination withdrawn. It is pretty clear now, thanks to some diligent researchers who are better at ferreting out material about academic types than I am, that Hawkins does meet notability requirements for academics. Admins, close this discussion in your own time. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —John Z (talk) 07:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that Hawkins meets both criteria one and criteria 7 for inclusion of academics. Since my search for Alan J. Hawkins generated over 2.9 million hits in google (although I am not sure how many relate to this Alan J. Hawkins), I find your dismissing of information on him in google so quickly disturbing. You have also apparently avoided using google scholar, where you will find a large number of papers and books by Hawkins. Beyond this, the Deseret News article I reference only refers to him as Alan Hawkins, which is another listing that I have not even started to explore.Johnpacklambert (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I used "Alan J. Hawkins" (all in quotes) as my search term, since that is how the article is titled. "Alan Hawkins" would turn up a very large number of hits, almost all irrelevant, because it is not an uncommon name. Still, the LA Times hit is noteworthy, and props to you for digging it up. I will admit this is not the strongest of deletion arguments, which is one of the reasons I went to AfD instead of PROD or speedy - I thought this needed some debate. (In other words, if "keep" is the outcome, I certainly won't get my nose out of joint.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have now placed a reference to a day when the Los Angeles Times included a quote from Hawkins. This is to at least began to show he has been widely referenced as an expert on his field of study. The Los Angeles Times is clearly not a case of a local paper referencing him, since he has never even lived in California.Johnpacklambert (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article itself needs work (not organized well, unreferenced assertions, redlinks), but the subject does appear to be notable according to WP:PROF #1. In particular a WoS search, "Author=(hawkins aj) Refined by: Subject Areas=(FAMILY STUDIES OR SOCIOLOGY OR SOCIAL WORK OR PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL OR DEMOGRAPHY OR PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HC" returns 38 hits that are basically consistent with the publications listed in Hawkins' Vita. Ordering by citation count, we find: 83, 40, 38, 35, 34, 31, ... These would seem to be significant numbers in the broad sector of sociology. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC).


 * Not familiar with the "WoS" term. Explain, please. Looks interesting. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Web of Science. John Z (talk) 05:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: The Alan J. Hawkins searh does produce many useful leads. However, I think I got the most leads from "Alan Hawkins", Marriage as a search term in google.  I never got all the way through them, but I had gotten to where a lot seemed to be related to other things.  If you read the article I believe I mention a few other publications that mention Hawkins, including Time which I believe refers to him as Alan J. Hawkins.Johnpacklambert (talk) 02:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you get the Time ref? I think that might sway me toward keeping, too. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * . (3rd hit on Google News archive search from Find sources at top). Qwfp (talk) 10:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Your experience in this case is not surprising. Google and GS will not be as useful here as they ordinarily might – the results will be swamped by false-positives because of the commonality of both the subject's name and his research area ("marriage", "family", etc.). Per the above WoS search, I don't think there is any remaining doubt at this point about the legitimacy and notability of his research. He passes the notability bar on this aspect alone, though you certainly can continue to search for other kinds of coverage & references. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC).
 * Reply: Yes, I've run into a similar problem once before. It's pretty clear now that he meets notability standards for academics. I'll withdraw. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment There is a link to the time article in the footnotes in the article, I believe it is the last item under notes currently. It is possibly not the best link, but it is there.  I also found at least one other article that mentioned Hawkins work, but it seemed to be from the AP, and I had already linked to another article that spoke of essentially the same issues in Hawkins reserch.Johnpacklambert (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. While the nominator might have been convinced notability has been established, I am not. All of the references provided so far are either trivial mentions, or from unreliable sources; I don't see the evidence that Hawkins himself has been the subject of significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What is this rhetoric of "reliable" souces. The fact is that papers that Hawkins was the lead author of have had widespread reference.  As I pointed out earlier, he comes not only under point 1 of academics but point 7, widespread quotations in news-media count.  Not only has he been referenced by Time, but by papers in Utah (which probably does not build the case), Los Angeles and Hawaii, and I am sure there are more.  Is Kurtz reference to his views incidental or not reliable?  Kurtz may not spend a lot of time mentioning Hawkins views on the adverse effects of genderless marriage, but it is Hawkins views on social-institutional change that are the center of Kurtz's arguments.  Lastly, no one has really dealt with the various positions that Hawkins has held.  While his positions at BYU may ever quite rise to notability, what of the work he did as a researcher for the Federal Government, especailly in light of the fact that the Diocese of Trenton, which has no religious or geographical connection to him, uses his work as the framework for a plan they want to implement with federal funds?Johnpacklambert (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I have dug up a totally new issue. Hawkins was an expert witness in Varnum v. Brien, which I have now mentioned at the appropriate points in the text. Being an expert witness in such a trial may not inpedendently establish notability, but I think it adds to the argument that he is viewed as an expert on this issue by those outside academia. If this were the only case of such it might be weak, but coupled with the Time reference, and newspapers in three other states, I think the case is becoming strong.Johnpacklambert (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

In their opening publication Healthymarriageinfo.org states "Highly-regarded academics in these fields were selected to author this inaugural project: Paul Amato, Ph.D., Frank Fincham, Ph.D., Alan Hawkins, Ph.D." they continue but I stopped there. They have called Alan Hawkins highly regarded in his field. I guess this is still just one sources opinion, but the evidence is building that Hawkins is a significant academic.Johnpacklambert (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2009 (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.