Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boulou Ebanda de B'béri


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 13:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Boulou Ebanda de B'béri

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I don't see how any of the criteria in WP:ACADEMIC are satisfied. According to Google Scholar, he hasn't been cited by anyone. There's simply no evidence of scholarly importance here. BlueonGray (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment ??? My own look at the Google Scholar link above finds three pages of hits of this Academic being cited, but I do not speak French.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Question: Are you sure? Because this search shows 10 publications and zero citations.--BlueonGray (talk) 20:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, remove the word "author" from your search.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * But then we're not necessarily dealing with scholarly citations of his work. If we merely do a search on his name, and it shows up as part of a conference abstract or in the acknowledgements in a book, that's not a scholarly citation. Doing a Google search on scholarly works authored by the subject tells us not only how many scholarly pieces he has published, but also which pieces have been cited by whom. It does not appear that anyone has cited his work.--BlueonGray (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

*Keep Seems that he is more than just an average college professor, and one who is making an impact within his field. We have him as 'Director of the Audiovisual Media Lab for the studies of Cultures and Societies' at University of Ottawa whose prizes and scholarships include the 2003 Van Horne Prize and the 2005 Canadian Foundation for Innovation (CFI) New Initiative Scholarship, and whose publications appear in the journals Cultural Studies, CiNéMAS, Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, Canadian Journal of Communication, Critical Arts, American Journal of Semiotics, and who is the author of Mapping Alternative Expressions of Blackness in Cinema (Germany, BASS 80, 2006), and the editor of Introduction to Media Studies: A Reader (Toronto, Oxford University Press, 2007) and Les "Cultural Studies" dans les mondes fraconphones, University of Ottawa Press (2010).. WP:ACADEMICS cautions that "most of new original research is published in journals and conference proceedings whereas in humanities book publications tend to play a larger role. The meaning of "substantial number of publications" and "high citation rates" is to be interpreted in line with the interpretations used by major research institutions in the awarding of tenure." And it also guides that we might consider "publications in especially prestigious and selective academic journals," which this man appears to have. And even though WP:BIO states "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources", we DO have secondary sources that can verify this fellow, his work, his 'ideas', and his influence.. Wikipedia does not expect a scholar to get the coverage as might a politician, athlete, or film star, and being cited is only a small portion of what editors are allowed to consider when determining notability.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * His Introduction to Media Studies was a textbook, not a monograph. It has since been discontinued and isn't even listed on the OUP website. Many academics start labs and centers, and many more publish in peer-reviewed journals. However, output is different from reception. There is no evidence of influence in his discipline: no influential piece of scholarship, no transformative idea or theory. For an associate professor to have not even one citation is rather surprising. There are graduate students who have made a bigger impact.--BlueonGray (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Much published, zero cited. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC).
 * Delete. I thought, given the lack of citations to his scholarly articles, and the description of him as a filmmaker in his article, that maybe WP:CREATIVE might be a better criterion than WP:PROF to look for notability. But I can't find any there either. Zero hits on Google news archive. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 *  Neutral  I do agree that WP:AUTHOR would be more applicable, but Google News archive appears broken. I can input a specific known article date and source and it comes up empty. Sure wish Google would get the stick out of their corporate butt.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The "breaking" of my ability to use News Archives was due to my using IE7. Now udated to IE8, I find that Nice {French) reports him chosen as one of the jurors at the Pan African Film Festival at Cannes. The Chatham Daily News has chosen to quote him in detail about the Promised Land Symposium. Things which do not usually happen to a non-notable professor, as apparently, and even if not cited by scholars, his expertise in his particular field is being sought out.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep' based on this.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral: okay, the participation as a judge at Cannes does change things. He still doesn't appear to have had any scholarly impact. He's notable; just not for scholarly reasons.--BlueonGray (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree. User:Dr. Blofeld has shown me as notable enough for Wikipedia, but not neccessarily for scholarly impact. Article will need cleanup and refocus.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 04:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Note: I have relisted this as the reference found above was a couple of days ago, and others who suggested deleting the article have not had time to discuss this. If they all change to "keep", I am happy to close this as a "keep", otherwise further discussion for a week might show a clear consensus one way or the other
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 05:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Dr Blofeld's reference lifts it over the threshold. --Pgallert (talk) 08:02, 2 September 2011 (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.