Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Michael (professor)


 * 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   keep.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 18:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

George Michael (professor)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article about an academic presents no evidence that he passes WP:PROF. A prod was declined with no improvement to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  —Justin W Smith talk/stalk 22:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Weak Keep. He seems to fall into a gray area: not particularly notable in regards to established policy, but notable enough to have an article. So, in the spirit of WP:IAR and WP:COMMON, I change my mind. I also think the article for his book, The Enemy of My Enemy, should be merged into this article. .  Article provides little evidence for notability as an academic. He might be more notable as an author, but he doesn't appear to be notable in that regard either.  There's also an article for his book, The Enemy of My Enemy, which might not be worthy of its own article. (21:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)) Justin W Smith talk/stalk 22:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that we've now agreed, at that book's talk page, that the book is in fact notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. DGG clarified the notability policy for books. Justin W Smith talk/stalk 20:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. As mentioned when the prod was declined, the requirement is not that the article reflect the subject's notability.  But rather than the subject be notable.  It's unclear to me whether this has been understood, and a WP:BEFORE analysis of notability outside of a review of the article has been undertaken by the nom.  The nom is required, before making a nomination due to sourcing or notability concerns, to "make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist."  Given that this had already been pointed out at prod, and the nom again limited his criticism to what is reflected in the article, I wonder whether this step was taken, as required.  For example, by reviewing articles in ghits searches such as this one, and gbooks searches such as this one.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The hits on your search either refer to the performer or are a book review. I don't see any news articles referring to this "George Michael". Perhaps you can specify a "hit" from that search that you believe is relevant to his notability? Or can you specify which criteria in PROF or WP:AUTHOR the subject of this article satisfies? Your WP:BEFORE argument is beside the point, and doesn't assume good faith. Justin W Smith talk/stalk 02:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to go through it all right now, but are you not seeing the ones (multiple) that refer to him as an expert? Also, since this is a prof, I should have mentioned the gscholar hits.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I did find one article that refers to this George Michael: here. Justin W Smith talk/stalk 02:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is probably a more relevant search. And it shows only one news article that mentions him. Justin W Smith talk/stalk 02:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please put on a better show of assuming good faith. Of course I did some searching before attempting to have this article deleted. Specifically, my assumption was that his personal name was too generic to be useful (as the results above indicate) so I searched for the titles of his books. I found a few reviews, as one expects to see for academic books, but nothing to convince me of any special notability. I also searched the Uva-Wise site for any news about him that might show a pass of WP:PROF in some other way, but again what I found did not convince me of anything. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * David -- Of course I assumed good faith. When I de-prod'd it, I pointed you to what the difference was between the prod criteria and the criteria you had mentioned (you referred only to what coverage there was in the article).  I also assumed that when you made the nom, in good faith you were indicating that your basis for your nomination was what was in the article.  You limited your rationale to that basis only, not speaking of what coverage existed outside the article.  And here I pointed out that those good-faith-so-I-know-they-were-honest rationales were not the standard.  But rather that the standard is not what is in the article, but rather what RS coverage exists that reflects indicia of notabilility.  That seems to me a fair statement on my part, that assumed good faith on your part in your statements.  I'm perplexed how you found my comments to be a showing of a paucity of AGF on my part.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, let me be more explicit. I have not seen any evidence either in the article or elsewhere that convinces me that he passes WP:PROF. But I am still willing to be convinced by specifics. Saying "just look on Google for yourself" is obviously not good enough, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fair. I'll see what I can come up with myself in this regard, and reflect it here or in the article--though I can't do it right this second.  I've at least started the process today -- notably, there are three Christian Science Monitor articles from this year that refer to him as an expert in his field, and he received the University of Virginia's "Outstanding Research Award", awarded to a faculty member who "has contributed significantly to published research in his or her discipline". Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. The history of the PROD is water under the bridge now. What I'm seeing now is a very thinly referenced article on a scholar who doesn't seem to be notable. Using topic keywords to assist the search I find GS hits for him, but with very few (15, 11, 5, 4, 2, 1) citations (a h-index of 4 is insufficient for WP:PROF). -- Radagast 3 (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. George Michael is an important academic source for anyone studying the far-right. He's the author of four books on the subject, and the article seems to be well-referenced. I can't see a good reason to delete it. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 11:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per SlimVirgin's comment. —Morning star (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per SimVirgin.  I haven't even incorporated into the article all the material that is out there, but there is already enough in the article itself to reflect that he meets criterion 1 of the guidance.  In that he has made significant impact in his scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.  The three Christian Science Monitor articles from this year that identify him as an expert in his field, and his award for contributing significantly to published research in his discipline, all support this conclusion.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition, he meets wp:author criterion 3, as he has written books that have been the subject of multiple independent periodical reviews as reflected in the article, but also for example here, here, and here and in the Jerusalem Post.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Inland Empire News and Christian Science Monitor quote him as an expert on extremism at the University of Virgina's College at Wise. I did the Google News search for his name plus "tea Party" to find the right guy.  He gets mentioned enough.   D r e a m Focus  07:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * At the bottom of the Inland Empire News article it says, "(Source: Christian Science Monitor)". It appears that only CSM has called him an "expert". Justin W Smith talk/stalk 18:40, 22 April 2010 (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.