Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Dawson


 * 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) – Davey 2010 Talk 00:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Ashley Dawson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Certainly speedy and PROD material with its current state and frankly I found nothing better than this, this, this, this and this. Notifying and  who may have some insight with this subject. SwisterTwister  talk  07:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  07:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  07:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  07:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets WP:PROF. Not speedy in the least--asserting the publication of a book except a non self published book, is enough to pass speedy. Not prod, because there are references. WP:PROF is passed by being   an authority in one's field: Sole author of  Mongrel Nation, U. Michigan Press, a first rate academic publisher, with the book in 1037 WorldCat Libraries . Tho that;s not a formal criterion ,this is a very high count for any academic book from a university press, and there are undoubtedly reviews to be found, or so many libraries wouldnt have bought it.  Sole author of a significant textbook, The Routledge concise history of twentieth-century British literature, in several hundred libraries. Editor of a number of other books, with counts in the hundreds.  Professor of English at CUNY Grad Center, a decent PhD -granting university. What the article needs is expansion.  DGG ( talk ) 07:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ahem, I think you mean CUNY, ... — sparklism hey! 14:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I'm going to disagree with here. The polices for academics are pretty clear. Just publishing obviously isn't notability. I don't see having the book in libraries is any proof of being an authority in ones' field. That book is only cited in G-Scholar by 59, which does not indicate a great impact on the field. The other criteria are things like: named chair; awards; highest position in the field. What I see here is just an average, or maybe a bit above average, professor. Delete LaMona (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * well, the average professor is an assistant professor at an undergraduate or master's college who has published one book or two papers. And citation counts depend on the subject: 59 isnt much in biomedicine; it's very high in literature.  DGG ( talk ) 19:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly, which makes this person possibly above average, but not necessarily notable. If, for example, it could be shown that the Routledge book is used as a text in many courses, that would be a plus. And I do think that you lean too much on numbers whose meaning isn't at all precise. The person still needs to meet WP:ACADEMICS and I'm not convinced that publishing alone is sufficient to stand out. (Note that the MOngrel Nation book is an ebook, so many of those library holdings could reflect ebook service subscriptions, not specific selection. I haven't looked to see what services it is in, however. This is why mere numbers don't tell the story.) Unfortunately, we don't have data to compare to. As I've said before, the main comparison that I have is that a book of mine is in more libraries than that, but it's a matter of buying profiles, not a testament to my personal importance. LaMona (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Several books with very respectable holdings statistics, including several published by first-tier presses like DUP. We have always accepted this kind of proof of notability under WP:PROF c1. Agricola44 (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC).
 * Keep more or less per DGG and Agricola44. The criteria cited in their arguments are more accurate indicators of coverage satisfying the GNG than many of our formal SNGs. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Dawson passes AUTHOR because Mongrel Nation got reviewed in multiple RS.  The  reviews were particularly flattering, but that's not our metric.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG's arguments. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC).
 * Keep per DGG. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 11:42, 23 November 2015 (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.