Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Roden


 * 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 except signature updates.  

The result was keep. This was close to no consensus, but the arguments for keeping were, on the whole, more compelling, and many of the delete arguments were effectively rebutted. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Donald Roden

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

No establishment of referenced notability, appears to fail WP:N at this time. Wizardman 17:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. —TreasuryTag talk contribs  18:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, fails WP:N. Mr mark taylor (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, honored for 30 years of service to Rutgers, wrote an influential book on education in Imperial Japan, which was reviewed in numerous journals, cited or quoted in many books -- clearly passes WP:PROF. Come on people, do a basic Google book or journal search before !voting. Jfire (talk) 02:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't think the 30 years service is anything that can be used to pass notability. On the contrary, being there that long and yet not being promoted to full professor seems a bad sign for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that he has received an award for 30 years of service is an indication that he has most likely had an influence in the areas he studies. And in fact, searches of books and journals indicate that he has. Jfire (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * delete Jfire's links show fairly typical academic impact. I havn't seen anything to suggest he passes WP:PROF, or evidence of significant coverage of Roden as a topic by reliable secondary sources. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The links show him passing at least WP:PROF #1 and #2 (as evidenced by the above search links) and #3 (his book was reviewed by at least three journals); it's likely that he passes #4 and #5 as well, and arguably #6 via the service award. Can you state more specifically why you don't see this as evidence of passing WP:PROF? Jfire (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * He's also cited as a reference in Professional baseball in Japan and Yokohama Athletic Club. The same paper is cited in numerous books and articles. Jfire (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Can you state more specifically why you don't see this as evidence of passing" Yes, I suppose I can. The evidence you provide demonstrates that he's an academic, but it does not demonstrate that he's had a notable impact as an academic.  None of the bolded parts of the six criteria in WP:PROF is demonstrably true in this case.  Being cited as a reference in Wikipedia doesn't make one notable, nor does having one's PhD thesis published and reviewed.  That's what professors are expected to do.  This Prof does not stand out from the crowd of other Profs in the sense required by WP:PROF #1 or #2. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. If this were a starting faculty member with a record like this I'd be more impressed, but if the best we can dig up after 30 years is a single book with three reviews and 21 cites in Google scholar, an associate professorship, and mention in a list of a couple dozen faculty who've been at Rutgers for 30 years, it doesn't seem like a pass of WP:PROF to me. #1, #2, #4: where are the citation numbers or other evidence that he is regarded as a significant expert or an important figure, or that his collected body of work is regarded as significant? #3: three reviews (actually at least four: ) does not qualify a humanities book as a significant work, it is rather the minimum that one would hope for. And it's his Ph.D. thesis; what has he done since? #5: what distinguishes his work from that of other East Asian historians? #6: time-at-service is simply not a notable award. I'm aware that Google scholar may not be the best source for citations to this kind of work, but the other database I tried, ISI, gave even fewer results: searching for Roden, DT, only three papers came up, two completely uncited and one with only two citations. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Pete above. Eusebeus (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per above - David Gerard (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Useful, sourced, neutral article. - cohesion 01:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete 30 years is a long time to work for the university, and congratulations to him for it. But he doesn't seem to have done a lot of notable work, so he doesn't really need a Wikipedia article to commemorate his service. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 03:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - based on google books there appears to be significant coverage in reliable sources. Addhoc (talk) 04:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: - I see 110 cites in Google Scholar, and since they all seem to be Japanese-based items I don't fancy there's more than one Donald Roden in academia. . Interestingly enough, he also seems to have penned a few Monarch Notes.    Ravenswing  15:10, 11 March 2008 (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.