Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guy Newland


 * 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   no consensus. At this time there is no firm consensus to delete this article, this close does not prejudice against a future nomination if warranted. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 14:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Guy Newland

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nom on behalf of an IP, who wrote on WT:AFD: " Reason is failure to show notability for an academic." This is merely procedureal on my part and should not be construed as an opinion one way or the other. DES (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 16.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 19:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I note that at least four times Newland is mentioned in the published works of othres as having been of valuable assistance in the preperation of said works. This does something to show him as a respected scholar, although it may not be enough to establish notability. See:
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=cgJyMXJgN_oC&pg=PR9&dq=%22Guy+Newland%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6lGvUpKNEsuFkQe754C4BQ&ved=0CDcQ6AEwADgU#v=onepage&q=%22Guy%20Newland%22&f=false
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=kfsyfoO1IlYC&pg=PR6&dq=%22Guy+Newland%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ulKvUouIMY37kQeLzIDoBQ&ved=0CGMQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=%22Guy%20Newland%22&f=false
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=s6YheW3gsXwC&pg=PR14&dq=%22Guy+Newland%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RlOvUpL7G4-LkAePmIHIBg&ved=0CFcQ6AEwBjgU#v=onepage&q=%22Guy%20Newland%22&f=false
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=QpO5ykqRHJEC&pg=PR22&dq=%22Guy+Newland%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RlOvUpL7G4-LkAePmIHIBg&ved=0CGIQ6AEwCDgU#v=onepage&q=%22Guy%20Newland%22&f=false
 * I am continuing to look into this matter. DES (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me   What did he do now?  19:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me   What did he do now?  19:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Further comment: WP:PROF says "For scholars in humanities the existing citation indices and GoogleScholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information. In these cases one can also look at how widely the person's books are held in various academic libraries (this information is available in Worldcat)". In this case, Worldcat shows, among other listings:
 * Appearance and reality : the two truths -- held in 125 libs, many are major University libraries;
 * The two truths in the Mādhyamika philosophy -- held in 68 libs, including major University libraries;
 * From here to enlightenment -- held in 232 libraries;
 * Introduction to emptiness -- held in 3 libraries;
 * Changing minds : contributions to the study of Buddhism and Tibet -- held in 131 libraries, many of them university libraries;
 * Compassion : a Tibetan analysis -- held in 6 libraries;
 * The great treatise on the stages of the path to enlightenment -- held in 227 libraries;
 * This is only a partial list, a sampling. In addition, several of these are listed in translation to other languages, with additional holdings of the translated editions. Moreover, in some cases there are multiple records where different libraries entered the same work into Worldcat with slightly different formatting or detail, these will increase the counts above. DES (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. A GS h-index of around 6 is a bit below the borderline for theology. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by uninvolved admin: DES, I would like if you would offer your personal opinion on if this BLP is notable or not... as it seems we're not going to get much further consensus gathering at this point. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 14:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * weak keep, I had planned to do some more searching, and never got to it. My view, given what I did discover, is that this person is notable, but only marginally. The article was not promotional, and might be useful for people interested in this specific field of study, and IMO does no harm. DES (talk) 14:30, 14 January 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.