Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Allen Hendricks


 * 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. WP:NPASR. T. Canens (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

John Allen Hendricks

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails GNG, WP:NPROF, WP:AUTHOR. While a prolific author, his books are not widely cited or a subject of much beyond book reviews. He himself doesn't receive coverage. h-index of 8 on google scholar. Being a department chair does not seem to establish notability for PROF. Icewhiz (talk) 10:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. As you know, I am new to editing and creating wiki articles; this was one of two articles that I created and I have frequently returned to it to learn the editing process. I felt comfortable editing something that I created rather than disturb someone else's work while I learned. But, I have enjoyed making many minor edits to many other wiki articles. I modeled this article on the following: Yahya R. Kamalipour, Christopher H. Sterling, and Michael C. Keith (other communication studies scholars). And, I tried to improve this article over those examples as some of them do not even have sources. While I know your decision to delete this article rather than help correct it has already been made on your part, I will still address your concerns. Regarding notability for academics, this individual meets far more than one of the criteria listed in WP:Academic/WP:NProf. He has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level as noted in the article from the National Communication Association. He held the highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic society, the Broadcast Education Association which has more than 2,000 international educators as members. And, his research has had a significant impact on his scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. There are many citations listed in the article of reviews of his work that speak highly of the work's contributions. Regarding his h-index of 8 on google scholar, that is a significant ranking for his discipline of communication. Wikipedia's own article on h-indices observes that "The h-indices for ("full") professors, based on Google Scholar data ranged from 2.8 (in law), through 3.4 (in political science), 3.7 (in sociology), 6.5 (in geography) and 7.6 (in economics). On average across the disciplines, a professor in the social sciences had an h-index about twice that of a lecturer or a senior lecturer, though the difference was the smallest in geography." Lastly, unless the professor does something scandalous he/she does not receive [media] coverage about themselves -- they are not celebrities. Rather, they are called upon by the media as experts about their areas of study (not about themselves). And, this individual has indeed been cited in numerous American national media outlets ranging from NBC News, FOX, and Congressional Quarterly magazine. His work has been recognized by American national media. Respectfully. Updater500 (talk) 05:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think the National Communication Association’s Applied Research Division’s 2011 Distinguished Edited Book Award is NPROF(2). Regarding whether a one year term as president of Broadcast Education Association meets NPROF(6) - I will let more experienced academic !votes weigh in.Icewhiz (talk) 06:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As a follow-up, the National Communication (along with its divisions) is the largest scholarly organization in the communication discipline. It publishes 11 scholarly journals and is highly respected in the discipline of communication and media studies. NPROF2 specifically states: "Some less significant academic honors and awards that confer a high level of academic prestige also can be used to satisfy Criterion 2. Examples may include certain awards, honors and prizes of notable academic societies, of notable foundations and trusts (e.g., the Guggenheim Fellowship, Linguapax Prize), etc. Significant academic awards and honors can also be used to partially satisfy Criterion 1 (see item 4 above in this section)." Regarding the Broadcast Education Association presidency, the BEA president only serves one year. Prior to serving as president of BEA, the president has already held the roles of Vice President of Academic Affairs, Secretary/Treasurer, and member of the Board of Directors. In total, it takes 8-9 years of service on the BEA Board of Directors to become the president. It's not just a "one year" term. Also, regarding your earlier reference to the google scholar h-index, the Wikipedia WP:Academic entry cautions: " For books, the coverage in Google Scholar is partly through Google Book Search, and is very strongly influenced by publisher's permissions and policies. Thus, the absence of references in Google Scholar should not be used as proof of non-notability." Updater500 (talk) 07:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Care to show how NPROF(1) is met The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.? Yes, google's h-index isn't perfect - e.g. not finding citations in books. However he does have a verified account and his books are attributed to him on scholar, and it doesn't appear that they are widely cited in journal articles. Not every professor is notable - you need to show significant impact.Icewhiz (talk) 07:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * NPROF(1)-- As you probably know, WP:ACADEMIC states that (1) can be met in various ways. Worldcat lists the individual's books in more than 3,300 libraries. Note that WP:ACADEMIC and WP:PROF states: "For scholars in humanities the existing citation indices and Google Scholar 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) when evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied." Further, Wikipedia states: "Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here. Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account. To count towards satisfying Criterion 1, citations need to occur in peer-reviewed scholarly publications such as journals or academic books." The article cites those peer reviewed publications of this individual's work. Again, regarding your references to the h-index, WP:PROF guidelines state: "Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. They should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used. They are also discipline-dependent; some disciplines have higher average citation rates than others." "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." He has met more than one to meet the NPROF(1). Updater500 (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 20:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nominator claimed that the subject's work, which is what his notability is based on rather than his inside-leg measurement or his favourite colour, is not "a subject of much beyond book reviews". That is simply a statement that it is not a subject of anything beyond the best possible sources for establishing notability per WP:AUTHOR. We don't expect politicians to be the subject of sources that are not about politics, or musicians to be the subject of sources that are not about music, so why introduce this ridiculous bar to authors that sources about their writing should be excluded? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2018 (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.