Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Mercer Brooke, Jr.


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 13:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

George Mercer Brooke, Jr.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

DELETE per

WP:NOTE, WP:MEMORIAL, WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:COI.

Detail:

WP:COI: obvious conflict of interest: original writer is a single-subject (this subject) account, digging deeper one finds that user Spareribs (the writer) self-identifies as the article subject's own grandson.

WP:RS: un-sourced family geneology, only possible bit of WP:NOTE is "was instrumental in gaining diplomatic relations with the Far East, especially with Japan" has no sources, the claim to being instrumental is not explained or supported. the U.S. has had diplomatic relations with japan since the 1840s, so just how this fellow was "instrumental in gaining diplomatic relations" is unclear. postwar relations-rebuilding perhaps? that was a big project actually involving many people; this fellow's notability in that regard is not defined or sourced.

WP:MEMORIAL: we're an encyclopedia, not an obituary page.

WP:GNG, WP:NOTE: being a professor at a college for a long time is not notable; doing academic writing while serving as college faculty for decades is not unusual --it is expected; writing one book (about your own ancestor) is not notable; being the a third-generation teaching or student legacy at a college is not encyclopedia-level noteworthyness; being a leader of the local historical society or of the regional boy scouts group is not newsworthy. Cramyourspam (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 20:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Comment -- This is a bad article on a person who may have been notable. I would like to know what he published in all his years on the faculty: most academics do publish.  Being given an emeritus title suggests that he was regarded by the academy as notable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, while there is passing mention of the subject in non-primary reliable sources, no source appears to provide the subject significant coverage to indicate that the subject meets WP:GNG, WP:ACADEMIC, or WP:SOLDIER at this time.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Biblio worm  01:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Before closing, I would ask for his opinion, as he knows the critieria for professors as good or better than anyone.  My gut says this guy is notable, but barely.  He held the title Professor Emeritus, which I don't think is a title that VMI throws around lightly. Dennis - 2&cent; 17:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Professor Emeritus means Retired Full Professor. It's not a distinguished professorship in the sense used at WP:PROF, The question of notability is more generally whether he is an authority in his field, or, alternatively, notable as NAUTHOR. As to that:


 * Weak keep What he wrote was three books about his grandfather, John Mercer Brooke, who is quite notable on several accounts. Each of the books is in over 200libraries. Though it would seem a narrow specialty, apparently its important enough  for the books to be widely held. I have not yet looked for reviews, but considering that each of them was publuished by a significanbt university press, there will be, and he will prove to meet NAUTHOR, at least technically. DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC).
 * I'm familiar with the title, but I also know they don't hand that title out like a party favor. What I suspected is what you found, that it is a borderline case. That is why I didn't just close it without a closer examination. Dennis - 2&cent; 23:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Delete. Over the years, I have had a number of interactions with an editor who has used various account names (User:MAURY and User:Brother Officer are two), who has been primarily interested in creating and building pagespace directly related to the Maury and Brooke family genealogies. I can't help but agree with most of what the nominator says. Yes, to memorial. Yes, to COI. Yes, to GNG. This page doesn't seem to meet the standard for inclusion, and my interactions with that sometimes troublesome editor would also lead me toward a bias against inclusion. However, in this case, I'm inclined to assert keep. A professor emeritus who is also the grandson of another VMI professor emeritus? This source which doesn't in my opinion meet the standard for RS, nonetheless bespeaks an extraordinary, influential life. I'm taking the liberty to ask User:Rjensen for input here. As a career American historiographer, if there are sources, Dr. Jensen will know how to find them. I'd ask potential closers to hold up while this content expert offers an opinion. BusterD (talk) 02:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: changing my assertion to delete per analysis by Rjensen. I was on the fence, leaning keep. I often disagree with him on the merits but my experience is that in his field of historiography, Dr. Jensen can be trusted. If he can't find anything significant, that's good enough for me. BusterD (talk) 05:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. I see nothing notable about his career, and the article is more about his relatives than his achievements. JSTOR has nothing by him. I see no books by him. (The Role of the United States Navy in the Suppression of the African Slave Trade is 14 pages long and is the only item in scholar.google). His dissertation "John Mercer Brooke, Naval Scientist" was not published, was purchased in microfilm by only two libraries, and is not cited by scholars. I found no reviews. He edited some family materials in Ironclads and Big Guns of the Confederacy: The Journal and Letters of John M. Brooke (Univ of South Carolina Press, 2002) but it has received minimal attention. All in all, a very obscure local professor at a small college, with no scholarly or professional reputation of note. Rjensen (talk) 03:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * every university I know of automatically hands out the position to ever full professor on retirement. Princeton simply calls it "transitioning to emeritus status". Of course, all their full professors are notable. That is not necessarily the case here. But, I do see books by him: John M. Brooke, naval scientist and educator (Univ. Press of Virginia) is in 256 libraries; Ironclads and big guns of the Confederacy : the journal and letters of John M. Brooke (U South Carolina Press) is in 174; John M. Brooke's Pacific cruise and Japanese adventure, 1858-1860 (U Hawaii Press) is in 239. WorldCat identities. To be sure, the first book is based on his thesis of the same title, which ,as usual is in essentially no libraries. But that's not true of the book.  DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * DGG has a better eye for libraries than I do! but Brooke's interests were family-oriented and not oriented to major scholarly concerns. He had one monograph (the 2 others are edited letters & journals). The reviews of the monograph are mixed on the author's abilities. ("The result is a well- researched, thorough, handsomely produced, but essentially pedestrian treatment. This biography is curiously old-fashioned, as if the rhetoric of nineteenth-century manuscripts had insinuated itself into both the author's style and his perception" J. American History); ("On the whole this is an excellent biography"  J Southern Hist); ("This is a modest, perhaps dutiful, study of a seemingly uninspired, uninspiring man, long on detail, short on meaning." Isis); ("Perhaps it is too much to ask of someone (even a historian) studying his own grandfather, but George Brooke has not been very critical of John M. Brooke....The volume cannot be considered a 'definitive" biography.'" Technology and Culture). All in all, in my view, all not a notable historian. Delete. Rjensen (talk) 05:17, 25 October 2014 (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.