Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judith Jesch


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 14:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Judith Jesch

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject of the article fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Professor are not generally considered notable Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 23:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 23:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 23:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 23:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep Nominator is mistaken, full professors at research universities are usually notable. Subject meets several of the academic criteria as a leading expert in the Vikings and also meets the criteria at WP:AUTHOR "The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument". Click publications here for the list of published works: http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/english/people/judith.jesch Philafrenzy (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I usually don't expect anything different from a "Speed keep", "Strong Keep", "Keep" or "merge" and sometime "redirect" vote from an article creator when their ridiculous articles get nominated for deletion through WP:AfD because editors rarely want their articles or contributions deleted. However, editors need not be reminded that Professors are generally not considered notable, they must meet our primary inclusion criteria and in this case WP:ACADEMIC must be satisfy. If I may ask, which of the WP:ACADEMIC criteria does your Judith Jesch met?

"ridiculous"? Didn't you read the sources? Philafrenzy (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Director of the Centre for the Study of the Viking Age, University of Nottingham
 * Chair of the international Runic Advisory Group
 * President of the English Place-Name Society
 * An international fellow (''utländsk arbetande ledamot') of Kungl. Gustav Adolfs Akademien in Uppsala, Sweden.;
 * Editorial Board member of Nottingham Medieval Studies, Viking and Medieval Scandinavia and Acta Scandinavica.
 * Fellow of the Royal Historical Society
 * Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries
 * Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.
 * I just asked you the criteria of the W:ACADEMIC you think the subject of the article met. Which of the Criteria of WP:ACADEMIC do you think she met? Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 00:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep She meets the first part of WP:ACADEMIC as having created a significant body of work. If the nominator had done WP:BEFORE they would have seen that the professor is cited in books, peer reviewed journals, etc, quite often. In addition, might want to keep out of the rest of the discussion. The categorization of the article in question as "ridiculous" shows that the nominator has a bias. Let others comment on the merits of the article from here on out, please.Megalibrarygirl (talk) 02:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "biased"? Nonetheless, being cited in peer-reviewed journal, books or monograph as a contributors to a research in her field is not an evidence of notability. Is she the subject of those books? Being the subject of those books is an evidence of notability and that's not the case here. For example, if I work on the "toxicity effects of Carica papaya seed flour at graded concentration" another editor working on the same seed may cite me that " Olatunde O. I (2015) concluded that or prove that ..... This indeed does not makes Olatunde O.I notable or meet WP:ACADEMIC. There are several categories of "more" in WP:PROF, such as notable awards or significant impact of research (most commonly demonstrated by having an h-index of about 20 or more). WP:PROF spells all this out in detail. She fails WP:ACADEMIC with an h-index of only 7. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 06:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that assessing academics is difficult. Remember, though, that all of the WP:ACADEMIC are guidelines. We still need to discuss and have more people come to the table. Considering that she's in a field that is fairly small and has been cited as often as she has shows that she has made a significant contribution. I'm going to ping and,  and  who are more of an expert on these things than I am. Maybe I'm wrong, but so far I see the subject of the article as someone who's made a significant contribution and therefore passes. In addition, I find it hard to take your comments as seriously because its clear that you have a bias towards getting this article deleted. The reason I say you have a bias is because your comment that the article was "ridiculous" above shows your true feelings. "Ridiculous" means "deserving or inviting derision or mockery; absurd." There is nothing in the article to suggest that it's ridiculous, and so the comment you made is meant to deride the article and the editor. It's quite a loaded statement and really doesn't belong in an AfD about a serious article (which this is.) If you misspoke, I understand. Please strike the comment, if it was a mistake, and we'll move on. But right now, you're coming off as aggressively wanting to delete this article for some reason. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 13:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not insinuating that this article in particular is ridiculous. I generalized my comments based on past experience. However, I struck the word "Ridiculous" above. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 14:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Jesch is president of a learned society, the English Place-Name Society (in existence since 1923), and there's an inline RS to that claim. Also this: "A more recent example of locating women in prehistory comes from Judith Jesch who wrote the first book-length work devoted entirely to Women in the Viking Age (1991)." --Rosiestep (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * to Keep per above arguments. I closed the debate. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 14:26, 2 October 2015 (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.