Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Shortland


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Dr. Universe (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Shortland

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Subject does not appear to meet WP:PROF or the WP:GNG. The references in the article are either passing mentions or non-independent sources and I can't find any more substantial coverage. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: as creator, appears in many references        to name several --Sputnik12 (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Quick observation: the ScienceDaily and Phys.org items are press releases, and the Daily Mail is deprecated. I wasn't able to check the Economist and Telegraph stories from my current computer, but all of the other items are passing mentions (and possibly not independent — churning press releases seems likely). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've now been able to check the Economist and Telegraph stories as well, and they are also brief, passing mentions. As WP:PROF says, being quoted occasionally is part of an academic's job. If there's a notability case to be made, it's not through the news. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. While I don't buy GNG or WP:NPROF C7, I do see plenty of journal articles with 100s of citations (including first/last-authored in a field where that matters) in what I believe to be a lower citation field.  I think it's enough for WP:NPROF C1. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Andrew J Shortland is covered with google scholar and scopus. He also is found in jstor.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 11:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * None of these are valid arguments, practically every single published researcher can be found in google scholar, scopus, and jstor, none of which are evidence of notability. Reywas92Talk 19:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Notability_(academics) this information may help with that. The Scopus group is selective with their database and will not accept just any publisher or any work.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. passes WP:NPROF#1 with 9 paper with > 100 citations according to Microsoft Academic. Plus multiple quotes (even though passing) in outlets such as Economist etc. --hroest 00:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Shortland is first author on only four of those. And the rule of thumb I've always heard is ten papers with >100 citations (or one with >1000) passes C1. Though never understand how, in practice, such an arbitrary standard is supposed to translate into the ability to write an article that doesn't rely completely on affiliated sources. Or how one would do that from a collection of short quotes in newspapers, for that matter. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that citation counts needed varry by discipline.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In example, 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 person to be cited.Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 03:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There are no hard rules and it does depend a lot on the field. In a low citation field like this 9 papers with > 100 citations is impressive. It would be much less so in Genomics or high energy physics. Also the standard WP:NPROF#1 does not translate into having RS or "ability to write an article" but simply whether an academic had a substantial impact on a field and therefore likely should have an article. Lastly, Shortland is *last author* on some of these articles, which is arguably as relevant (lead PI), meaning he was the head of the lab and directed the research eg for Radiocarbon-Based Chronology for Dynastic Egypt and DISCOVERY, PRODUCTION AND USE OF TIN-BASED OPACIFIERS IN GLASSES, ENAMELS AND GLAZES FROM THE LATE IRON AGE ONWARDS: A REASSESSMENT. --hroest 18:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Notability always comes down to the ability to write an article that conforms to our core content policies. That's what notability means and that's what the "N" in NPROF stands for. I have no problem with heuristics like this, but they're not actually in WP:NPROF and, given how subjective they are (archaeological science might be a "low citation field" compared to physics, but it's a "high citation" field compared to theology), ultimately there has to be the ability to substantiate a presumption of notability with actual sources to write an actual article.
 * By the way, the PI-as-final-author convention is not always followed in archaeology. The paper on the radiocarbon chronology of Egypt, for example, was part of project directed by Christopher Bronk Ramsey, the head of the Oxford radiocarbon lab, where Shortland had previously been a PhD student and research fellow. Again, our presumptions about significance are not worth as much as sources. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm interesting, you are correct in the Science article indeed the first author is the corresponding author. I agree that here the source situation is not great, since independent sources are mostly missing, even if notability is established. However within WP:NPROF there is an agreement that non-independent faculty pages such as this (see General Notes) can be used to write the article, so that should hopefully provide at least a useful stub. Regarding his impact on the field, it seems you are much more qualified to judge this than I am and feel free to advance an argument based on that; but "lack of sources" is not the main issue here. --hroest 15:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Appears to pass WP:NACADEMIC #1 and probably #5 as well. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –– F ORMAL D UDE ( talk ) 13:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as creator per previous comments and above comments on citations showing significant impact in field of research, especially 9 papers with > 100 citations is impressive ... Shortland is *last author* on some of these articles, which is arguably as relevant (lead PI), meaning he was the head of the lab and directed the research eg for 1 and 2 by hroest. Sputnik12 (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2021 (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.