Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George W. Knight III


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

George W. Knight III

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

Not clear what his claim to notability is. That he had a short commentary included in an anthology is the only noteworthy item in the article and there is nothing special about this accomplishment. R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 00:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as a notable author. He has done way more than what the article claims, and the article has room for expansion. Tavix 00:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Followup: A Google Books search brings up 671 books either by him or mentions him. That is enough to establish notability for sure. Tavix (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * * Sanity check Only one of the entries on the first page from Google Books refers to him. Did you notice many of them were published in the previous century?  Do you suppose he's the "George W. Knight" referenced in the book on Polymer Chemistry?  Please, let's have some minimal level of attention before posting random Google links. -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 04:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is true, didn't look that closely. Adding "George W. Knight III" still leaves 110 entries, which after a check, they all look to from/about this George W. Knight. Tavix (talk) 04:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, that seems reasonable, but I simply don't know how to interpret this number. Please don't interpret this the wrong way, but if I search for myself on Google Books, I have far, far more references.  This is not a comparative statement; it is merely an acknowledgment that I don't know what these kinds of results imply.  If this fellow is notable, let's find reliable sources that make this claim, rather than trying to guess what the results of Google Books mean.-- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 04:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * All it means is there are 110 books that either mention George W. Knight or are by him. I looked through every page, and given his name and his field, all of the books are this guy. Searching for yourself on Google Books obviously wouldn't reference you, but there are other people that share your name (unless you actually are an author). You could use any of the books as an example, but being referenced in over 100 books is a pretty notable task, which not many people can say. Tavix (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My name is fairly unique and I am indeed referenced in far more than 110 books according to Google Books. This is perhaps not as unusual as you might think for academics, philosophers, theologians, etc.  That is my sole point.  -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 05:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is beside the point. How many other people would have the name "George W. Knight III". According to my research, it would be zero. There may be some other "George W. Knight"s as you have proved, but having an ambiguous name or not says nothing.Tavix (talk) 05:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This line of discussion is becoming unproductive. 100 references in the literature of his field is not particularly impressive.  How are you determining your threshold for notability?  (Rhetorical question there...) -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 05:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC);
 * I'm not using a number, but instead I provided a source where one can find hundreds of notable, reliable sources for proving Mr. Knight's notability. Tavix 06:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 110 does not equal hundreds. And I do think you are missing my point.-- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 20:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, but 110 > 100, so you can make it plural. You better explain you point more clearly then, because all your accusing me of doing is using a number to prove notability, when in actuality, I am providing a source where one could find information for finding notability. Tavix (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, doesn't establish Notability. Oroso (talk)  09:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the numerous hits found by Tavix's booksearch. Edward321 (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete notability. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, does anyone else want more proof of notability? You can try here, which is an example of one of his works. Tavix (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Question What on earth does an essay on a random website demonstrate? -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 00:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you read? Tavix (talk) 02:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Speaking of reading, I'll suggest you study WP:Civil. -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 02:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good, maybe you can actually read the source I have provided you and maybe you can answer your own question. CLICK HERE Tavix (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would I assume good faith when you are being nasty? Let's end this line of discussion. -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 06:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to end it because you are accusing me of being something I am not. It was a good faith comment to try and get you to read the source I have provided and hopefully it would answer the question you asked. I would like to ask you to be civil as well, please. I am really not trying to be nasty, okay? Tavix (talk) 06:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with RandomHumanoid here. This example is really inane. We are looking for reliably published third-party sources for his notability, not unreliably-published web page examples of his own writing. Even if seeing his writing were supposed to provide us with personal epiphanies of his greatness (which it completely doesn't for me), that's not the way we judge notability here. Instead, provide evidence based on WP:BIO or WP:PROF, please. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It was just an example of his work. Tavix (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Now, now! - This is the kind of author I'd never read unless forced or paid a decent sum, but... he's all over the place. He's sold at online Christian bookstores, reviews books and has had his own books reviewed. He's a known author. Now, there's the problem of notability still, in that lots of authors are "sort of" known, "famous" within a small community but utterly unknown and unimportant everywhere else. So the matter of coverage is still an issue here.Jlg4104 (talk) 04:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Book: The Pastoral Epistles; Worldcat entries: 416. My subjective threshold for notability based on Worldcat entries is 300. I believe this is enough to meet WP:PROF criterion #1.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Knox is a major well-recognized theological seminary, and a full professor there is notable. But Eric, the threshold depends upon the subject--in many esoteric fields, or fields not covered by american libraries, it doesn't need anywhere like that.--not that this affects the matter here, for theology is just the sort of field where we would accept less. The point is not the publication as such, but that the publication of such a widely read book in combination with the academic position shows him to be accepted as an authority in his field. DGG (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, we are in full agreement. I just try to highlight one key point to support my keep recommendation, to facilitate the work of the admin closing the AFD.--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * DGG, where on earth is it written that a full professor anywhere is sufficient for satisfying WP:Prof? Certainly not within the policy itself.  In fact, it would seem to indicate exactly the opposite.-- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 03:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Full professors are not necessarily notable. Full professors in major research universities are, for they will always have done sufficient work to be recognized by their peers as having achieved distinction; it implies the status of being an authority in one field, and is necessarily notable. The recognition by passing the successive peer reviews internal and external that are required for such status are much more stringent as well as more objective than anything we inexpert people here can provide. The standard of being an authority in ones field is set by the people in the field. Knox is not a research university in a broader sense, but a specialized one, and  within its subject it is a comparable level. Reading the talk page at WP:PROF, I see there is a recent trend to accept associate professors also as having reached the point of being considered an authority in their field. I am not necessarily prepared to go that far, but i think there might be a good reason for it. DGG (talk) 09:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Eric Yurken. John254 16:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 30 December 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.