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   no consensus. Cirt (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Andrew J Newman

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

Article asserts no notability. Subject fails wp:prof, having only written a few papers. Article's references are poor. Bonewah (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep – Believe Dr. Newman books have been cited enough by reliable – 3rd party – independent – creditable sources as shown here, to establish notability under our academics guidelines.  Thanks   ShoesssS Talk 14:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If you read wp:prof you will see that being cited by others is not, by itself, a criteria for establishing notability. Criteria 1 states that the subject must have made a significant impact in their field, and I dont believe being cited 26 times really qualifies. Bonewah (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I believe it is more than 26 times.  In fact, in jut one, it is showing as 28. However,  either way, if you note the pieces Dr. Newman has been cited in, and continue to look at where those particular pieces are cited, I believe it establishes a case for inclusion.  Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 15:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 00:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The book that is cited a paltry 28 times is not authored by Newman (I'm unsure why it pops up, because searching in the book for "newman" does not find any references to him). Of his own works, the most cited seems to be a 2000 book with just 10 citations. To qualify for WP:ACADEMIC criterion 1, many hundreds of citations are needed, not just a few hundred. --Crusio (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Top GS cites are 10, 6, 4 ..... Clearly inadequate for WP:Prof #1 as noted above. Cite patterns in this field could be significant. Input from Islamic scholars is desirable. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep GS is irrelevant in a field like this, where three separate factors coincide: 1/ the book-oriented humanities do not give rise to significant numbers of citations, 2/ religion, and especially islamic religion, is a particularly isolated field, 3/ citations are likely to be from nonenglish sources, which GS almost totally omits. .  Looking at  the CV, the books edited as well as the two he wrote, and the journals articles, I conclude he is an authority in his specialty.    DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I did not !vote "delete" based on the very low citation counts because I am unfamiliar with this field and kind of suspected what DGG now confirms. Notability established based on other accomplishments than citations. --Crusio (talk) 09:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment DGG didnt actually establish notability, he merely established that GS might not be the best way to judge this person's notability. Bonewah (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Your absolutely right - However, he did established Mr. Newman was an authority in his specialty, there by worthy for inclusion under creative professional. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 20:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Respectfully, I disagree. He may well be an authority in his specialty, but that still doesnt satisfy wp:prof, in my opinion.  Any professor will likely have several published works, and, one would hope, be an authority in whatever speciality he or she has chosen.  This is why wp:prof was written, in my opinion, to advise us to only write articles about those who stand out, those who have done more than the typical professor.  My opinion anyway. Bonewah (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I fully agree with Bonewah's comment above. Also, based on my (significant) experience with non-english sources, I haven't found any evidence that GS systematically omits them. They just usually don't show up at the top, because they are less cited themselves (because they are not written in scientific lingua franca), but show up in the count anyway. --CronopioFlotante (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I was not aware that Google Scholar has anything like the coverage in Persian or Arabic (the most likely non-English languages that would have coverage of the subject) that it does in English. Could you provide some evidence from your significant experience that these languages are covered? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. No, I claimed that the experience was significant, not all-encompassing :) --CronopioFlotante (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Question. If we are going to decide that WP:PROF#1 is satisfied based on non-english sources, do we have any evidence of Persian or Arabic citations of his work? I'm asking because I think that Wikipedia policy is that someone is non-notable unless shown otherwise, not the other way around. --CronopioFlotante (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions.  —CronopioFlotante (talk) 22:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. He may be an authority in his speciality, but we have no evidence that he is. Thanks to CronopioFlotante for the reminder that Notability requires verifiable evidence to justify inclusion, and I believe previous contributors to this discussion already have made a reasonable good-faith search for such evidence. WorldCat Identities' results say his two authored books are held by 185 and 120 of the libraries they cover, while the two he's edited are in 124 and 6 libraries. This is nowhere near the level (nine books, most widely held in 809 & 639 libraries) shown by Cheryl Rubenberg, another scholar of the Middle-East, whose recent AfD generated much discussion.
 * Without such evidence, what can we say about him? No more than his university homepage, which bears a strong enough resemblance to the current wikipedia article to raise questions of copyright violation. The current article is entirely reliant on this single first-party source. Surely that goes against the whole purpose of the Notability Guidelines. Qwfp (talk) 11:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 21:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete per Qwfp. --CronopioFlotante (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions.  —NW ( Talk ) 22:01, 3 September 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.