Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerard Wegemer


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Gerard Wegemer

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

Non notable subject. He's written a few books, but what professor hasn't? Being a university lecturer and having written books does not, in itself, establish notability. Google search returns nothing but primary sources, and shopping sites. HJMitchell   You rang?  18:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:PROFESSOR Drawn Some (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —  Salih  ( talk ) 18:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, perhaps with some speed. Mitchell, lots of professors have not written books--don't rub it in. ;) Drawn Some, you refer to WP:PROF but you obviously didn't combine the very first criterion, "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources," with a search in Google Scholar, one of the easiest tools to determine this impact. The guy has been cited numerous times, as demonstrated here. Even a quick glance at Google Books would establish this. Drmies (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree that a few citations constitute "significant impact". Those are strong words. I don't see it demonstrated. Drawn Some (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, I had pasted the wrong link in my Google Books reference. It is corrected now, and shows plenty of citations of Wegemer in reputable books in the field--we're not dealing with "a few citations." Nominators and commentators really should do their homework. Wegemer's Thomas More on Statesmanship was (according to JSTOR) reviewed four times, in The Sixteenth Century Journal, Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies, The Review of Politics, and Renaissance Quarterly. I could go on. Drmies (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, respectfully, this is a four-line stub. I am not impressed that his books were reviewed and cited.  That still does not constitute "significant impact", ideas or thoughts that changed something or contributed greatly to the body of knowledge of the subject.  Please explain how he has made significant impact in his field of study, even one idea that has shifted the direction of discussion, even. Drawn Some (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Writing a book that is reviewed in four such notable academic journals is automatically a good reason to assume that the subject's work is deemed to be notable and significant. If it weren't, it wouldn't be reviewed--it's as simple as that. And if that significant number of notable books and citations revealed through Google Books and Google Scholar doesn't convince, and if a regular News search doesn't convince you, then I guess I have little more to add and we'll just have to agree to disagree on what it means to have an impact as a scholar. Go through the News search until you get to (I added wikilinks) "University of St. Thomas School of Law dedicates statue of St. Thomas..." That article says, "The dedication included remarks by Dr. Gerard Wegemer, director of the Center for St. Thomas More Studies at the University of Dallas and one of the pre-eminent scholars on St. Thomas More. Mengler presented Wegemer with the school's Dignitatis Humanae Award, presented annually to an individual whose professional career is a model of the integration of faith and ethics into professional identity." I might note also that the condition of the article has no bearing whatsoever on the notability of the subject; a four-sentence stub simply means it's not finished. In fact, I'm going to add the award to the article, and perhaps other editors will be more convinced than you are. Drmies (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * An award for "integrating faith and ethics into professional identity" is no indication of "significant impact" in a field of study. It means he is a well-liked professor.  I do understand that the state of an article does not indicate notability but in this case it appears that the size of the article and the lack of any meaningful discussion of his contributions to the field are correlated.  I would like to reiterate that having a book reviewed does not indicate that it makes a "significant contribution" to a field.  I still would like to see just one idea that he has contributed that has changed the direction of discourse or even multiple small ideas or thoughts that have substantially added to the body of knowledge.  I just don't see anything. Drawn Some (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what that means. He teaches in Dallas and got the award in Minnesota, and not for his teaching. I don't think you know what it means if your book is reviewed by four journals of that caliber, and I'll leave it at that. Drmies (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your line of reasoning is quite circular and false: His book was reviewed so it was important because if weren't important it wouldn't have been reviewed.  The guidelines are quite clear regarding significant impact. Do you have a personal or professional relationship with Wegemer? Drawn Some (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would remind you of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Drmies (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm sorry that you've taken offense and apologize for questioning your motivation. I've made my point about not meeting WP:PROFESSOR and won't comment again unless new information comes to light to change my opinion on the matter. Drawn Some (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

--Saynara (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Though he's a full professor, its notat a major research university, so it raises no presumption of notability: we need to look at his work.  What usually makes professors in the humanities notable is writing  books, which shows their notability as authorities within the subject.  The books need to be from scholarly publishers  and get reviews, and the journal articles must be widely cited. By no means all professors write 4 books; the average in the humanities is closer to 1, & 2 is enough for tenure at even the highest quality universities. I fail to see what is circular about reviews, because only the significant books get reviewed at all; 4 reviews for a book is quite a high level in the academic world. Reviews and citations prove the importance of books  Besides the books, he has 10 articles.  I note the citation information above. This many publications is enough for notability.  He's clearly an authority on More, thus meetingthe first criterion in WP:PROF.   Publishing  "an  idea that he has contributed that has changed the direction of discourse" is not the standard, and a good thing too, because we're not qualified to judge that. We are, however, qualified to check on reviews and references: that's what we mean by significant impact  The people who judge the quality of the work are the peer-reviewers for the scholarly publishers. We accept their standards.  DGG (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with DGG's findings. 7 to 10 articles are good enough.
 * Keep Satisfied that he meets WP:PROF per his publishing history and citation thereof. Maralia (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO. Citation impact seems to be low. Most widely held book in libraries, 'currently in less than 60 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat. By comparison, a book by Richard Marius on Thomas More is in more than 2,000 libraries worldwide. In fact, I was able to find more than 10 books on Thomas More in about 1,000 libraries or more, according to WorldCat.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG. I agree with the nom that being a Prof and writing books is not automatically sufficient, but these books seemed to have been reviewed enough for me to consider that overall his work reaches "significant" impact.YobMod 10:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Borderline delete and I could be convinced to keep but not with current sourced material. The criteria for academic notability are high for a reason.  If every published prof met the criteria it would render notability meaningless.Johndowning (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * normal publication level for a tenured faculty member in the humanities at the very best universities is 2 books. He has more. the criteria for academic notability are high, and he meets them. DGG (talk) 02:44, 10 May 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.