Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew G. Shead


 * 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.  Arbitrarily0  ( talk ) 13:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Andrew G. Shead

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NACADEMIC, except for debatably points 3, 4, and 6. Regarding point 3 (elected member of society, etc.), it's unclear whether the NIV Committee is an elected body (a description I found online was "self-perpetuating"), and he is not a fellow in re the second part of point 3. As for point 4, so far as I can research, there have been no new versions of the NIV Bible since 2016, and Shead joined the committee only in 2016 per source. In re 6, his position is not head teacher, is appears in the infobox, but Head of Old Testament. This, coupled with the faculty list, shows that there are higher appointed academic positions in the college; this fails point 6. Then sourcing: independent secondary sources with significant coverage don't seem to exist as per my WP:BEFORE checks. There are seven references given in the article. Numbers 1, 2, and 4 are not independent, being entries or profiles of organizations he is affiliated with. 3, 5, and 7 do not have significant coverage, being book reviews. 2 and 6 are not significant as they are sparse entries. Iseult  Δx parlez moi 06:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero  Parlez Moi 08:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Iseult   Δx parlez moi 06:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * KEEP per wp:nexists — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Bobs Doo Doo (talk • contribs) 06:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've addressed that in my checks: see in my rationale Then sourcing: independent secondary sources with significant coverage don't seem to exist as per my WP:BEFORE checks. Iseult   Δx parlez moi 06:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Struck trolling --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 07:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Hopelessly academic academic, books are not notable, doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC; WP:AUTHOR the fact that his wife's name is Jean and they have three children: Katie, David, and Sophie is really not something I needed to know. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete needs to have more coverage and in-depth articles about it. Fails WP:NACADEMICS. Samanthany (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Appears to meet WP:AUTHOR; there are six reviews already cited in the article (not checked; presumably the quotations have been hand-typed). Espresso Addict (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: author of article has since added five more sources to the article, numbered 8 through 13. 9 and 10 are not significant; they are brief bios of a group of people. The remainder, all reviews, can only be considered in the context of attempting to fulfill WP:NAUTHOR, although only point 1 can possibly be satisfied; 2 and 4 are patently not, and 3 is addressed in my nomination rationale (hasn't done visible work). Reference 8/12 (Sweeney) is a two-page review-summary; I say review-summary because most of it is summary, and only the last paragraph a review; I do not consider that significant coverage. Reference 11 is a one-pager, the last three sentences of which are a review of his work. Reference 13 is much more of a review, but is a one-pager in a 280+page journal. In any case, these are not about him but his work; also, point 1 of NAUTHOR describes wide citations; five instances is not wide. Iseult   Δx parlez moi 15:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Strongly Keep: he appears to meet WP:NACADEMIC, points 1, 4, and 7
 * 1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources: Shead has been an author of highly cited in scholary publications with his works about the book of Jeremiah, even in other languages. Google scholar show at this time 305 citations, with 79 of Buchgestalten des Jeremiabuches: Untersuchungen zur Redaktions-und Rezeptionsgeschichte von Jer 30-33 im Kontext des Buches. In theology and church history, people do not have the same citation count as in fields like biology, because the density of publication in the field is so much lower--there are many fewer than 1% as many journals and papers, and correspondingly few opportunities for even the most notable peson to be cited. Any work with as many as 79 citations in these fields is quite a bit beyond the usual, and sufficient for notability. Even the citations occur in peer-reviewed scholarly publications such as journals or academic books, and Shead has made a significant research about Jeremiah, as can be seen in the article (it is not possible to place in the article all existing reviews). Shead also can be found in Scopus.
 * 4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions & 7. the person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity: Shead has contributed to biblical studies in the book of Jeremiah on an ongoing basis in academia and he is is frequently quoted as an academic expert in the book of Jeremiah as can be see in the citations.
 * I also add that each statement in the article is properly referenced.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete don't see how he meet WP:NAUTHOR. --Morpho achilles (talk) 11:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete – I'm not quite seeing anything here that adds up to notability.
 * GNG: Shead has not been discussed in depth by independent reliable sources, as appears uncontested.
 * NPROF crit. 1: Theology is indeed a low-citation field, but we still need to show a "significant impact in their scholarly discipline", and these numbers don't seem to be too out of the ordinary. I'd also note that the numbers of citations for the Buchgestalten article appears to be incorrect: it's counting articles that are citing Schmid's book, not Schead's review of that book. The actual number of citations is thus significantly lower than the number Google Scholar is producing.
 * NPROF crit. 4 & 7: Crit. 4 has to do with those who impact the field of education as such, for instance if one's work is frequently studied in university courses. There's no indication that that's the case. For crit. 7, I don't see any evidence that he's quoted at an unusual frequency; note that "[a] small number of quotations...is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark".
 * NAUTHOR crit. 3: My interpretation of NAUTHOR sometimes diverges from that of others, but I understand crit. 3 to require that one's work be "significant or well-known" in addition to being the subject of reviews, and I don't think that the former standard is met. Neither the reviews nor the citations indicate that his two monographs are particularly prominent or influential: they appear to be unexceptional books that, while part of the scholarly literature, don't meet the threshold set by NAUTHOR.
 * On balance, I don't think that Shead meets these notability criteria (or any others), although I respect that others' views may differ. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment For example here, his work A Mouth Full of Fire. The Word of God in the words of Jeremiah has had an impact on the academy to be included in the course bibliography.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 09:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly passes criteria 3 of WP:NAUTHOR with three independent critical reviews in evidence. This is generally the threshold used at AFD for that criteria (a minimum of 3 independent reviews). Other arguments above against NAUTHOR seem to be applying an unusually high amount of rigor that goes beyond what is typical at AFD when applying that policy.4meter4 (talk) 07:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Coverage is sufficient to meet WP:NAUTHOR. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:NAUTHOR. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.