Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Heartfield


 * 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. Consensus exists that the subject passed WP:AUTHOR. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 07:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

James Heartfield
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

The subject of the page does not meet the notability criteria for academics as described in these guidelines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)

The subject was an unsuccessful candidate for an election. The subject of the page does not meet the notability criteria for politicians as described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians_and_judges — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maud.Clowd (talk • contribs) 09:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)


 * He may, however, meet the requirements of an author. He's published quite a lot of books, which sit somewhere in between academic and popular, making it hard to know exactly what standards to use. However, I note that his book "The British and Foreign Anti Slavery Society" has been subject to a number of independent reviews Elemimele (talk) 09:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I hadn't considered that his notability might come from him being an author. However, the reviews you reference are published in academic journals. I think academic books in history will usually have independent book reviews. So I'm not sure this makes the author notable. Perhaps a historian could confirm or deny this. Maud.Clowd (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't the foggiest idea! I know we're encouraged to use common sense about academic books that may have smaller print-runs and appeal to a narrower range of people (i.e. a truly academic book that got reviewed twice in academic journals would have been one that made an exceptional impact; most fade into literature without mention!), but my impression is that these are supposed to appeal more widely, in which case you're completely right. I have no strong feelings either way. Elemimele (talk) 12:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Heartfield01 (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC) I tend to agree that losing an election is not notable. But I think that my research and written work has made a valuable contribution in a number of areas. Both books The Aborigines' Protection Society and the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society are the acknowledged leaders on their particular subjects. According to Google Scholar, my book on the Aborigines' Protection Society has been cited in 99 collected books and articles. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=5704919096256914697&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en

For the Royal Geographical Society Jonathan Wright named The Aborigines' Protection Society 'book of the month' when it was published in November 2011, saying it was 'a major, well-written and closely researched contribution to the study of 19th century imperialism' (Geographical, November 2011, p 65) It was, according the the journal Settler Colonial Studies 'A welcome and long overdue history of one of the most influential lobby groups in Britain and its emerging empire during the nineteenth century.'

Senior Lecturer in colonial and indigenous histories of Australia and the Pacific at La Trobe University Tracey Banivanua Mar, while critical, accepted that the Aborigines' Protection Society was 'formidably researched, and for any student of British imperialism the book will be instructive and fascinating'. (Arena) I think that the reason that the APS book (and this is also true of the BFASS book) was successful was that it was based on close research of the thousands of pages that the Society published on different parts of the world where Britain was active. The material covered simply had not been looked at in the detail before. I'll add more about the other works later.

Heartfield01 (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2021 (UTC) My book The Death of the Subject Explained has been cited 190 times https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=list_works&hl=en&hl=en&user=nm5fgNEAAAAJ Munira Mirza, when she was culture secretary at the Greater London Authority wrote that it was 'one of the most useful guides to why we thing about culture and arts in the way we do'. (International Journal of Cultural Policy, Vol 16, No 1, February 2010, 58-9)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)


 * keep with a number of reviews including   and the ones found by  he passes WP:NAUTHOR.  Generally academic reviews are counted towards notability per WP:NAUTHOR. I would fail to see how reviews in academic journals are less important than other reviews, I would rather suggest that they are held to a higher standard and assess scholarly contribution. In general as long as the venue in which the review appears is reliable, we can use it -- there are many niche genres outside academia where authors become notable by being reviewed in a specialized journal (eg science fiction etc). Given that multiple books of his have multiple reviews, this also means WP:BLP1E doesnt apply here but this shows a consistent streak of recognized scholarship. --hroest 16:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that academic reviews are in any way unreliable sources, just that if one publishes an academic book (in some disciplines) then it extremely likely to be reviewed (in an academic journal) - so it doesn't really indicate notability. In particular, it seems that the majority of academic historians employed by British universities (beyond the early career stage) will have published a book which will have been reviewed in academic journals (so it isn't particularly notable). Mathematics is an extreme case i.e. all papers published in maths journals of good standing are reviewed on mathscinet - so clearly don't contribute to notability. As mentioned in my reply to Elemimele, I didn't consider notability as an author. The WP:NAUTHOR guidelines are a lot more vague, so personally, I find it hard to determine whether he is notable or not under those guideline. If the page is kept, it would be good if someone reviewed it as it looks like it may have been mainly written by someone close to James Heartfield and in earlier times, James Heartfield himself. Maud.Clowd (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete -- I see no evidence that he is an academic. He has certainly produced a number of books, whose titles suggest to me that he has some kind of political slant to his history.  A few good reviews in specialist periodicals do not make an author notable without more.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * the argument is not that he fulfills NPROF but that he passes WP:NAUTHOR#3. Whether he is politically biased or not does not matter here. --hroest 02:07, 14 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Heartfield would appear to meet qualification 1 under https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:NACADEMIC&redirect=no in the case of three of his published works, in that they are cited by authors working in his different fields (which is something other than being reviewed). Here, here and here. Murray McDonald (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added 16 published reviews of five of his books to the article, enough to convince me of a pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable historian in his area, as per reviews. Page useful to other historians. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2021 (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.