Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Azumah


 * 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.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 13:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

John Azumah

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject appears to fail to meet WP:NACADEMICS, as discussed with the article's creator and others at User:Jcstanley/my articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment for now -- Lots of books, but largest is 200 holdings in Worldcat, then 100, then in the 10s-20s; so not enough there. Books have attracted one review in JSTOR, in a journal that is of sufficient quality to add to the notion that this is an important book, but it is largely a negative review (Journal of African Studies, 2003), so does not help much for notability, considering that there are no followups.  What seems to be the strongest pro-Keep argument is the headship of the Presbyterian church in London; but that might be deceiving -- Presbyterianism is not nearly so big in England as other English-speaking areas; so being the head of London might not be enough for a Keep.  Would be good for someone with more domain knowledge about Presbyterianism or religious studies in Africa to weigh in.  -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Note that he is on the Editorial Board of Transformation (journal), or, at least, was for several years. (“Front Matter”. 2011. “Front Matter”. Transformation 28 (2). Sage Publications, Ltd.. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43052838.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * His scholarly articles include: (Azumah, John. 2000. “Controversy and Restraint in Ghana”. Transformation 17 (1). Sage Publications, Ltd.: 23–26. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43054955.), (Azumah, John. 2005. “Theological Foundations of Shari'a in Islam: Concerns and Reservations”. Transformation 22 (4). Sage Publications, Ltd.: 238–50. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43052645.).E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * According to Google Scholar, the first of those articles has been cited once and the second not at all. None of his journal articles have been widely cited, though his book has 40 citations. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the main problem with Google Scholar's citation counters -- it has no clue how to count citations and influence in humanities articles; and it's so bad that it can't even be used to count relative influence between two people. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not sure I follow, . Have those articles been cited more often than Google says? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * His writing seems to be taken seriously .E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC) For example, when he published a serious article in the serious if conservative Christian intellectual journal First Things, a serious intellectual took the time to write responding essay on Patheos, here: .  Again, I haven't actually read all of this discussion of Azumah's ideas, I haven't real him either.  I argue merely that his work is being seriously engaged in serious places by serious people.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I do not pretend to have delved into the arguments Azumah makes, but scrolling past the first page in a google books search it rapidly becomes clear that multiple authors have not merely cited, but discussed and engaged with Azumah's ideas at some length.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I consider that his output of publications is sufficient to merit retention. My initial reaction was the reverse.  Citation indices do not so at all well on non-scientific subjects, because significant journals are often not included in their count.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2016 (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.