Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Holliday


 * 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. Clearly notable, and consensus was following that path. Star  Mississippi  17:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Ian Holliday

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Not notable, one source listed (which is a dead link) is a CV. Thirty4 (talk) 03:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Thirty4 (talk) 03:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Thirty4 (talk) 03:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly notable. President of a university with an enrollment of 30,000, with origins in the 19th century. The nominator could not have performed WP:BEFORE and could not have read the deletion policy. competency is required, either read the deletion policy and follow it; stop bringing disruptive, ridiculous nominations to WP:AFD. Jacona (talk) 11:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * comment. In the nomination, the nominator says "one source listed". There are four. The nom gives no indication that he looked for other sources.Jacona (talk) 11:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete the nominator probably meant there was one independent source that is actual usable. Sure, there are "multiple" sources in the article, but two of them are from the university the dude is president of and the other two only count as a single source since they are from the same outlet. Sure, competency is required for nominations, but it's also required for people who are voting on the AFD and the whole "primary sources can't be used for notability" is pretty basic. So I suggest the people who brought it up put their condescension in check, actually follow the guidelines they are complaining about, and a real argument as to why this should be kept instead of just attacking the nominator. Outside of that, the reason I'm going delete is because there's ONE independent reference in the article that isn't even really that in-depth and has nothing to do with the dude, really if you count them as two reference that goes for both of them, and I couldn't find anything else. So there's zero reason to keep this. If someone can provide WP:THREE references that actually talk about the guy then I'm fine changing my vote to keep though. I just couldn't find any. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't know any Chinese languages, so I cannot say what they say, but one might presume that there would be far more coverage in Mandarin, Cantonese, etc. than in English because of the location. Even so, a search for "Ian Holliday" plus "Hong Kong" gets a couple thousand results. Using Newspapers.com, he is cited as a "Burma Expert" in articles from places as widely dispersed as Iowa, Pennsylvania, and London, including The London Daily Telegraph from August 12, 2009 and Vancouver's Province of the same date. Additional cites range from 1998 to 2017, so this is not just a one-off event. The South China Post has numerous articles which appear to be significant coverage, but is behind a paywall, as does TimesHigherEducation. The fact that these sources aren't in the article most likely is the result not of the lack of sources, but editors such as myself not being able to access them, or being biased in favor of English-language sources. This gentleman has been widely cited and acknowledged as an expert on at least three continents over a span of 3 decades.Jacona (talk) 12:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The Chinese language article only has two references, one of which is primary and the other is extremely trivial. You'd think that wouldn't be the case if this was merely a language barrier issue. If he's such an expert on Hong Kong then there should be an actual article about him Chinese that goes beyond what we have access to, yet the article is worse then the English version. In the meantime you can't just claim without evidence, based on the number of Google search results, or through making claims of expertise in a topic area that someone is notable. Some rando in Iowa can call him a "Burma Expert", but it's literally meaningless if you can't provide in-depth coverage of him in multiple independent sources to back it up with. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I included the quote by "some rando in Iowa" to demonstrate that his recognition is far-flung across geography and time. "Some Rando" can easily be augmented, here's a few more sources referring to Holliday as a Burma or Myanmar expert: "Voice of America, 2009", "John Ruwitch of Reuters, 2007", "Antoaneta Bezlova, IPS, 2009","Cambridge University Press, in an academic work from 2014". Jacona (talk) 11:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, but as far as I can tell none of those or the other references that refer to him as an expert are actually about him. They cite his opinions. Which isn't what we need here. This isn't an article about Burma or Myanmar. It's about Ian Holliday. I'm sure you get the difference and why references about the first two don't help. The point is, people can refer to him as an expert on Burma and Myanmar all day long, but they need to actually discuss him also in the meantime, not just cite what his opinions are on international law or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Holliday is co-editor of the book Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Myanmar and author of Burma Redux: Global Justice and the Quest for Political Reform in Myanmar. Also Painting Myanmar's Transition (Hardcover) and Liberalism and Democracy in Myanmar. Jacona (talk) 12:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In addition to the above books, a search at abebooks came up with around a half-dozen other titles he is either the author or editor of, but I got bored; someone else might be interested. Jacona (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence that his books have been the recipients of multiple reviews by independent reliable sources or are we just suppose to say he's notable because he wrote some books no one has reviewed or done any other commentary on? --Adamant1 (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * His books are mentioned and quoted in newspaper articles on 4 continents, his Burmese protest art show is mentioned in several articles, his books are used in the bibliography of several other books. Most of this is in links already in this AfD or in the article. I think this shows he meets WP:NACADEMIC criteria 7, in that his books have made an impact in other areas.Jacona (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that his books being used in bibliographies counted as book reviews or conferred that he's had a substantial impact on anything. Thanks for the information. I know a couple of extremely low level professors at my local community college that have research papers cited in bibliographies who will happy to know they can have Wikipedia articles now because of it <--- obviously sarcasm --Adamant1 (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There's loads of evidence of that, if you would just care to click on the word "scholar" above. What on Earth makes you think that his books have not been reviewed? The only reason I can think of for that is that you think yourself too important to simply look, which is what people who are here to build an encyclopedia do. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * the self importance dig comes off a lot like the tea kettle calling the pot black considering there hasn't been one single discussion involving both of us that I can think of where you haven't took the opportunity to insult me. It's pretty obvious you think your the most important person between us in any discussion we are both involved in. Maybe don't throw stones in glass houses. More on topic, I could really give a crap less if his books have been reviewed. I just couldn't find any reviews myself. if there's evidence to the contrary, cool. Show me some evidence. I could really give a crap, but I'll pass on the holier-than-thou condescension about it in the meantime thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The evidence is in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I read over a couple of the "reviews" that are cited in the article. At least in respect to the ones I read calling them book reviews is stretching it. I don't necessarily think a college professor making extremely vague statements about how another professor's work is interesting or whatever in an academic journal really counts for notability either. Anymore then it would for singers or actors to comment each others work. Let alone does it confer that the person had an impact on their field. Like in Burma Redux: Global Justice and the Quest for Political Reform in Myanmar, Michael W. Charney says "This is a really interesting book." In no way does that convey that number 7 of WP:NACADEMIC is met like Jacona says it does. No insult to Ian Holliday or anything, but it should go without saying that there's a big difference between his work being interesting and having an impact on Asian studies. I don't think "interesting" means "influential" either. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So calling articles published in academic journals under titles which include the word "review" reviews is "stretching it", is it? Can't you just acknowledge for once that your initial kneejerk reaction was wrong, and that we need to look at the evidence to decide on notability rather than just make a guess? Phil Bridger (talk) 08:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I note that the subject has a single-authored paper with over 1000 citations and plenty more papers with over 100. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject obviously passes multiple counts of WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - as has been pointed out by others, passes WP:NPROF. Onel 5969  TT me 21:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think he is not president of HKU, but a lower-level administrative position? But he has enough book reviews for WP:AUTHOR, at least. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR, which in his field I think amounts to passing WP:PROF; the former implies the latter in those parts of academia where "success" is more about influential books than influential papers. And in this case, as pointed out by above, the citation profile for the papers looks pretty good too. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Where's the evidence that his work has at all been influential in the field of Asian studies or policies? --Adamant1 (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Adamant1, look at the section "Books". Three of his books have been reviewed by nine academic scholars in peer-reviewed journals. That's how we assess that. And please also see Colons and asterisks. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as he passes WP:NPROF. --hroest 00:51, 31 March 2022 (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.