Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darren Stanley


 * 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   delete. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Darren_Stanley
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The page was created by the BLP himself. I don't think it meets the criteria outlined in WP:PROF or WP:ACADEMIC even though the BLP is an editor of two journals, no article links to the page Johndowning (talk) 02:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep one of the criteria (#8) at WP:PROFESSOR is editor-in-chief of a well-established journal. He seems to meet that, I checked the reference, unless the journal itself is questionable. Drawn Some (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Here is a link to the journal in question: | Univ of Windsor Publication. I don't feel this meets the criteria in WP:Academic "8. The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a  major well-established journal  in their subject area."  The key word to me seems to be "major" journal.  If someone can clarify that the reference journal from the University of Windsor is in fact a "major" journal in the subject area I can accept that he meets the criteria in "8." and can agree with the Keep.  Johndowning (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Journal established 6 years, but not in Scopus or, apparently, other indexes, not even ERIC. . He himself seems to have no publications listed in Scopus either. The items in Google Scholar do not seem significant. DGG (talk) 05:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing to Delete since it has now been established that the journal is not only questionable but minor. Drawn Some (talk) 07:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not yet sufficiently notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC).
 * Does it mean he is notable to some extent?? --Saynara (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Refer to Google scholar listings - Are they from Stanley? He is a professor, has published books and papers and editor. Is Scopus similar to Digital Bibliography & Library Project? DBLP is run by someone who enters all conference publications in bulk, you do not see there all the entries from reputed journals. What is ERIC? How do we access it? --Saynara (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * His articles have not been sufficiently cited for him to be considered to have made a "significant impact" in his field. Also he hasn't written any books, apparently notable academics in his field generally publish one or two at a minimum. If you review WP:PROF including the footnotes you can see what the guidelines are. Drawn Some (talk)


 * Thanks for the input and the research. I generally favor "Keeping" when possible, but not in this case. It's just that the way I read the Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) criteria, to be notable requires more than just publishing academic articles. I think the rational is that if that is the criteria, every single first year College Professor in the world is probably notable. Again, I'm not against inclusion, and maybe they and all future profs should be listed, but that just isn't how the Academic Notability criteria seems to be written. Johndowning (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails "Web of Science" test – using the loosest criterion "Author=(stanley d*)", there don't seem to be any contributions from the subject of the article associated with either University of Alberta or University of Windsor. (Note 1: There are several papers from someone sur-named Stanley from U of A, but further checking indicated that this person is a mathematician, one Don Stanley. Note 2: For those of you who may object to applying WoS in this case, this database covers roughly 10,000 journals in science, social science, and humanities, so notable academic works are highly likely to be represented here. An earlier debate has additional relevant info.) This observation suggests that the publications listed in the article are not particularly notable or significant and concurs with DGG's conclusion on the journal editorship point. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC).
 * FWIW, WoS coverage of Education & the other soft social sciences is weak, and their coverage of humanities really disgraceful. I would never rely on them much in that area. Scopus is a little better in the social sciences but even worse in humanities. There's no one-stop shopping in these areas. That's why I checked with ERIC, the most comprehensive index for US education articles--and free,  also.  DGG (talk) 04:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Although we differ on the coverage aspect of WoS, I think we certainly agree: the more source-checks, the better. :) Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC).


 * Weak delete. Per DGG and Agricola44. The journal editorship gets him close to meeting WP:PROF criterion #8, but, in addition to the points made by DGG, I could not find that many libraries that hold the journal (through a WorldCat search).-Eric Yurken (talk) 01:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:09, 9 May 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.