Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew G. Bostom


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Andrew G. Bostom

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not seem to be notable. The article says that he is mainly known as the editor (not author) of one book. That book, The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, seems to be notable. But that does not automatically make its editor also notable. Jaque Hammer (talk) 11:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep V,N --Katie Sweetmore (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 *  Keep  N, RS, V --Katie Sweetmore (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Ms. Sweetmore is a SPA who's been spamming AfDs with this self-same vote.  Ravenswing  16:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR: Mr Bostom appears to be the author of multiple notable books (books which have received reviews in multiple notable publications). WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Impressive cites on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. Passes WP:AUTHOR as WikiDan61 says.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Some notability, but per wp:n, notability is not temporary.  Regardless, i will err on the side of keep.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I just cleaned up the article, which was both very badly sourced and badly balanced (it almost completely ignored his medical expertise despite that being the focus of some of the discussion here). Anyway, I think he passes WP:PROF but the case is weaker than it would appear from the citation numbers: he has two papers with over 1000 citations and several more with numbers in the high three digits, but he's second or third in a long list of authors, so his own contribution to that research is unclear. More clear, to me, is that he does also pass WP:GNG for his writings on Islam; I found several stories in major newspapers specifically about his work in that area. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Author order varies between subjects. There are no formal policies on author order expressed by journals, academic institutions or leaned societies. Ad hoc conventions, if any, vary from subject to subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Yes, I know; in my field it's alphabetical. My point was more that the very large number of authors on these papers means that the credit for them should be shared in smaller pieces. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. There is a discussion going on somewhere (?) about how to deal with academics who have a vast number of citations as a result of publishing with a high energy group with a vast number of authors but no apparent notability elsewhere. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:11, 30 January 2011 (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.