Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew J. Newman


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. RL0919 (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Andrew J. Newman

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

Does not meet any of the criteria of WP:PROF. No indication his work is significant in his field, no major award or position, no prestigious position. This looks like a garden variety academic of no special note. Bonewah (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep meets WP:NACADEMIC criteria #1 as equivalent to a named chair at Edinburgh (holds two chairs in fact) Jack4576 (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe it's one chair, whose designated subject area is "Islamic Studies and Persian" (not one chair in "Islamic Studies" and another in "Persian", which would be weird). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Enough published book reviews (of at least three books) for an easy pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete WP:AUTHOR did not state published book counts, but rather notability of work, and this person has not published any notable work.
 * Hadal1337 (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete I didnt actually put in my !vote.  According to  here and his bio at University of Edinburg, he holds person chairs, not named chairs (if there is a difference).  Additionally, Hadal1337 is correct, WP:AUTHOR calls for his work to be "a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" in addition to that work being reviewed. Bonewah (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have struck your !vote, because like all other participants, nominators are not allowed to !vote twice (the nomination itself counts as a !vote). Anyway, you are looking at the wrong criterion. AUTHOR 4(c) merely states that the work has "won significant critical attention". The number of published reviews of three of his books is indeed significant critical attention, and also makes these individual books themselves notable works (even if we do not yet have separate articles about them). Additionally they give an obvious pass of WP:GNG: we have 22 in-depth reliably published and independent sources about the subject's scholarly work, which is exactly the sort of thing one would expect GNG-worthy sources about an academic to cover. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep Well over the threshold to pass WP:AUTHOR (multiple scholarly reviews of multiple books is enough to indicate significance). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 12:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Reasons:
 * Looking at Andrew J. Newman, I see three works with enough academic sources for the works to pass GNG. The reviews directly comment directly and indepth on the professional work of the subject.
 * They do hold an endowed chair at a major university. Under Notability (academics), #5 "The person has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research"
 * The number of reviews of their academic work in respected scholarly journals is an indication that Notability (academics), #1 "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." or more weakly #4 "The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.". There is no evidence their works are being used in higher education, but the reviews of the works indicate that it is certainly possible they are on many reading lists.
 * In this case there could be three separate articles on their works with bios of the author, or a bio of the author with sections for each of the works. I think the reader would be much better served by having one article covering the author focusing on their major works.  // Timothy :: talk  05:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. The person who loves reading (talk) 02:12, 25 May 2023 (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.