Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James J. Cooke


 * 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. We can split hairs on whether or not there was a lack of consensus, but the arguments for retention seem to far outweigh the arguments for deletion here. MuZemike 20:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

James J. Cooke

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Recreation of a prod-deleted article. Historian, no notability established. References are by the subject, not about him. Delete.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 04:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Despite the large number of military history books claimed to be written by Cooke, I'm unable to find any hint of his (or their) notability while searching "James J. Cooke", "James Cooke military" or "James Cooke Mississippi". Other editors may have better luck but in the absence of reliable independent sources testifying to his notability he failes WP:N and should be deleted. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've turned the original wall of text article into... a wall of text with paragraphs and headings. It's still pretty rubbish but it's not quite so painful to read, which will hopefully aid those wanting to comment on the AfD. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability for an author is determined by how well their books do. Published by unuiversity press and by normal trade publishers (verified on Amazon).   Google scholar finds " [CITATION] The all-Americans at war: the 82nd Division in the Great War, 1917-1918    JJ Cooke, 1999 - Greenwood Publishing Group    Cited by 8 - Related articles - All 2 versions " meaning his work has been cited by others.  Including most of his books.  So we have a published author whose books are cited by others.  Sufficient. Collect (talk) 12:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm unaware of any policy support for the assertion that "notability for an author is determined by how well their books do". As far as I'm aware the relevant criteria area WP:AUTHOR and WP:N, and there's no claim or sources suggesting he passes any criterion at either of those policies. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Few academics get published by both university and trade press. The implication is that they sell enough of his books to pay. I was being flippant -- Rowling would be "not notable" had her first book not sold. Academic books do not meet those sales figures, hence ssales are not a true proper criterion of notability.  As you note, cites by others are one measure -- and his books have been cited by reputable academics.  Abebooks shows 58 copies of his work for sale - I have seen "notable" authors with fewer copies for sale.  Books reviewed by Phil. Inquirer etc. so meets "reviewed" status.  Frankly, there are a bunch of far less notable authors on WP -- this one to me is sufficiently notable.  Collect (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - does not meet WP:AUTHOR. Citations noted by Collect do not seem significant. Just not notable, I'm afraid. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 07:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Considering the respectable list of publications, that he is cited, and that I can go to the local Uni. library (in Canada) and pick up three of his publications, I figure this merits time to establish sources. There is no obvious lack of notability here, so deletion is premature. - BalthCat (talk) 08:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Has at least one book, New French imperialism, currently in more than 580 major libraries worldwide according to WorldCat, and at least other 3 books in more than 400.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unless further evidence emerges. Cites from GS are tiny. If kept, article needs to be pruned. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC).
 * Weak keep. These reviews would appear to get the subject through WP:AUTHOR: . Phil Bridger (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Eric Yurken, Phil Bridger. In addition, he is a fellow of the Royal Historical Society, and the article claims membership in the Palmes Academiques of France. Neither of these, so far as I can tell, would fit under WP:PROF #2 or #3, but they do add towards the suggestion that he passes WP:PROF #1. Ray  Talk 00:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Eric Yurken, Phil Bridger and Ray. Note that for humanities GoogleScholar is very bad at determining citability. Nsk92 (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree with that, and also point out that one review is worth very many citations, as it is actually written about the subject's work rather than merely using that work to support a statement. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:57, 18 November 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.