Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James G. Henderson


 * 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. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 00:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

James G. Henderson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nothing to establish him meeting the requirements of Notability (academics). Eeekster (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable. Kierzek (talk) 01:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, no evidence of notability. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets the requirements as a specialist in his field, on the basis of seven published books by major publishers, some of the quite widely held, and three of them translated into Chinese (which shows international recognition). I wonder whether the nom e thought about WP:BEFORE; the article as submitted was hopelessly inadequate. nut I filled it in, and they could have also. The additional judgements, added before I did that, seem to be based on the absence of data, saying essentially that if the article is inadequate, the person must not be notable. We have never in the last 4 or 5 years deleted an article for a full professor at a major university, except for those fields, such as education, where apparently there is a feeling that they are not worth serious consideration (and also  excepting a few individuals with unpopular views whether in their own or on unrelated subjects). Both represent prejudice.   DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * DGG What you are saying here seems to be different from the statement on the Notability (academics) page. There it states: "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. However, once notability has been established through independent sources, non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details." (My emphasis) Are you saying that evidence that the professor did indeed publish meets this criterion, and that third-party information about the person and his/her research is not needed? (I'm not questioning that reasoning, I'm trying to square your criteria with what I understand as WP:V.) LaMona (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources are good enough. The holdings data from Worldcat is a reliable independent source, that establishes notability because of its proof of the number of books and their widespread presence. If you want to be technical, they show the widespread holdings for each of the seven books separately & are thus multiple sources, each of them totally independent from him or his university.  It would, of course, be preferable to have reviews in addition, in which case it would furthermore meet WAUTHOR.  DGG ( talk ) 20:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "the sources are good enough." There really are no sources here, just his writings. That's why I was asking your interpretation of Notability (academics). As for the Worldcat numbers, in fact, they aren't meaningful, and I was going to anyway suggest that they be dropped from the article. #1) there are about 70K libraries represented in WorldCat, so a number like "353" is much less than a drop in the bucket. (I myself have a publication that has over 1100 holdings as listed in WorldCat. I am not wp:notable.) #2) those numbers are far from stable. I was trying to do some research based on them and noticed that they changed every time I searched. I contacted folks at OCLC and they admitted that the numbers appear to change depending on the state of the database over time in terms of record merging and other database maintenance. #3) If you wish to cite numbers, they have to be meaningful, which would be how does this book rank in relation to others in the same field? By searching on subject headings from the book I found some in the 800's and 900's. I found others in the 300's and 200's. What does this mean for this book? At best, you can show that, ballpark, it's fair to middling. But you can't say that a particular number, like '353' proves anything. LaMona (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete An average academic; no awards, no breakthroughs found. LaMona (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Has advanced an educational concept known as 3S Understanding. I've added a few sources. EricEnfermero  HOWDY! 06:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG and the addition of independent sources by EricEnfermero.  Royal broil  21:27, 7 September 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.