Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Reisz


 * 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   various. Consensus is to retain Kelly's article and delete the rest Fritzpoll (talk) 09:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Emma Reisz

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

A series of articles about lecturers in the Dept. of History at Queen's University Belfast, input by an SPA,. After two of them were speedied WP:CSD yesterday, I pointed him to WP:PROF and explained that embarrassment could be caused by attempts to list people who did not qualify; but he re-entered those two, listing one publication that each had written, and added three more, one of which has since been speedied. In my opinion all are A7 candidates, but rather than go on with a speedy-recreate cycle, I bring them here. Kelly is a Senior Lecturer, the other three are Lecturers; I have checked Google Scholar, and find no indication that any of them meet the requirements of WP:PROF. Wikipedia is not a staff listing directory. Delete all. JohnCD (talk) 11:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —JohnCD (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Kelly, Delete all the rest Per DGG below. Nom is absolutely correct about this. James probably means well, fortunately I don't have friends like that... :-) --Crusio (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * delete Emma Reisz, Eric Morier-Genoud, Anthony Stanonis, after reading their homepages and looking through google scholar I see no evidence to suggest that these recent PhDs pass WP:PROF. I offer no opinion yet on Brian Kelly (havn't taken time to GS carefully).  I also see no evidence to suggest that he passes WP:PROF. I'll check back to see if any further evidence shows up for him. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - yes, checking out Brian Kelly is hard work because there are so many of them. In Google Scholar, if you put the name in quotes (to eliminate, e.g, articles by "Kelly Tepper and Brian C. Shaffer"), and restrict the scope on the search page to "Social Sciences, Arts, and Humanities" the number found reduces to 206; then it's a matter of knowing this Kelly's interests and slogging through looking at the article titles. JohnCD (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * comment alternatively, one could GS search on the titles of the "selected works" from his academic homepage... that would at least give an idea of the citation rates for his most influential (one would assume) works. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea, I have done that as well. The best is for his book "Race, Class and Power in the Alabama Coalfields", with 9 citations in GS, three copies in UK libraries but many more in the US, 384 altogether in Worldcat. Going through the Scholar list the hard way, in the first 100 entries I found 7 of his, best citation counts 9 and 6. Citation rates in the humanities are hard to assess, but I still don't think he meets WP:PROF. Note to closing admin: this sort of discussion is unavoidable but embarrassing - maybe this debate should be courtesy blanked if it closes "delete". JohnCD (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ideally, divide and re-nominate. These are not all of equal notability . That was of courser hard to tell g from the totally inadequate PR-type articles originally submitted, but because clearer  when I looked at the actual publications.  In particular:
 * 1) Reisz has published a few articles, and, just now is about to publish one book The book is not yet in any academic libraries..Unless the book is a great success, she;s still a beginner & not yet notable.
 * 2) Morier-Genoud has not yet published a book, just a small number of articles. She is not yet notable.
 * 3) Brian Kelly, unlike the others, is a Senior Lecturer not a lecturer; His book won two awards--he is therefore notable.
 * 4) Anthony Stanonis has published a few articles, and one book, so unless it is a great success, he's not yet notable. It's based on his dissertation, and in 200 WorlCat libraries. I found no reviews.
 * 5) Brian Kelly, in addition to his articles, published a book that won two important prizes, is in almost 500 worldCat libraries, a very good record for labor history, and received reviews in 6 important journals in the field, including the highly prestigious Journal of American History. He clearly meets WP:PROF, because of the reviews. and the prizes. Reviews prove the importance of the book, and its confirmed by the prizes.

So we haveKeep for Kelly, delete for the others. DGG (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Kelly per DGG. Delete the rest again per DGG. Hobit (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Kelly, Delete the others as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup Keep Kelly, delete the rest as per DGG. Really I'm surprised Reisz wasn't nominated for a speedy. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:20, 30 March 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.