Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin D. Edwards


 * 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, (non-admin closure), consensus clearly seems to be keep Fr33kman talk  APW 22:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Justin D. Edwards

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Subject does not seem particularly notable by WP:PROF He is a full professor, but not of an endowed chair, and at a university a fair way down the league tables. He appears to have held a one-year by-fellowship at a Cambridge college, but this is a non-stipendary vistorship (per http://www.chu.cam.ac.uk/admissions/fellows/Fellowships.php#b). Has written four books, and edited a couple, but almost nothing turns up on google scholar (e.g., 5 citations for his 2003 book, 4 for his 2005 book, 2 of which are actually the same citation, none for his 2002 book, although I was able to find academic reviews online}. The external links on the wiki page are mostly to book reviews, some of which were merely of books he edited. I also did not find anything in his academic cv that suggests notability (http://www.bangor.ac.uk/english/staff/edwards.php).} Crieff (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of -related deletion discussions.


 * Keep. GoogleScholar is notoriously bad in fishing out citations in humanities (WP:PROF mentions this) and one should look at things like book reviews and book library holdings as more reliable indicators of notability for such cases (again, per WP:PROF). In this case I checked two of his five books in WorldCat. The book "Exotic journeys: exploring the erotics of U.S. travel literature, 1840-1930" returns not just the book listing but also 6 reviews of the book in academic journals listed in WorldCat (which is already fairly unusual). The book is widely held in academic libraries (in the U.S. WorldCat lists 179 libraries holding the book). The second book, "Gothic passages: racial ambiguity and the American gothic" produces even more impressive results in WorldCat. Again, 6 reviews of the book in academic journals listed there. According to WorldCat, the book is held by 594 libraries (most are acdemic libraries) in the U.S. alone. These are extremely high results for an academic book on any subject. Passes WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 03:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nsk92. --Crusio (talk) 06:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete.Thanks for the caveats re GoogleScholar, Nsk92. I still have doubts about whether the subject satisfies WP:PROF. For starters, there are only three reviews, not six, of the 'Exotic Journeys' book listed in WorldCat, and five reviews, rather than six, of the Gothic book (you counted six and six because some of the reviews are listed twice, for some reason). Three reviews of one book and five of another does not strike me as particularly unusual, especially in the field of English (lots of profs, lots of journals), and especially when the topic of the book is historical Americana (Exotic Journeys) or Americana/Race issues (the Gothic book). There are just two reviews of his third and most recent book on WorldCat, which is on Gothic Canada. (If his books were being reviewed because he is notable, rather than b/c the topic is relevant to a broader cross-section of academic, I would expect him to have consistently high review counts.)


 * I'm also unsure about how much weight should hang on the library holdings, which again, at least to my mind, don't jump out as particularly high, especially given the nature of the books and the discipline. Can you say more about why you think those numbers are 'extremely high results for an academic book on any subject"? Moreover, widespread library holdings would be relevant, I think, when they reflect the esteem with which an author is held by the academic community. Are you confident that the library holdings in this case are evidence that "the person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline" (per WP"PROF? I doubt, for example, that Alice Lloyd College Library in Pippa Passes, Kentucky holds the book because it was specifically recommended for purchase by a member of faculty or because its author is on a 'must buy' list because of his notability. What seems much more likely is that a library made a buying decision based on the title and nature of the book.


 * Moreover, the UK library holdings of books by the subject are extremely low, especially considering he is based in the UK. His 'Gothic Passages' book is held by only five libraries, his 'Exotic Journeys' book is held by just three libraries, and his 'Gothic Canada' book is held by just four libraries. In each case, one of the libraries is at his home university, and the bulk of the rest are UK copright libraries (which get a free copy of every book published in the UK, and mantain vast and indiscriminate holdings of academic books). This does not seem consistent with someone who has made a significant impact on his academic discipline. Crieff (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To put library holdings into perspective: I know firsthand that Elsevier considers an academic book that sells a total of 300 copies WORLDWIDE a VERY good seller.--Crusio (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * First, a note on protocol. By a Wikipedia convention, the AfD nominator usually does not cast an additional !vote in the AfD itself. The nominating statement is already understood to be a Delete !vote and will be counted as such by the closing admin. (So a "Comment" or "Response" header for your comment above would be more appropriate). Regarding the number of reviews in WorldCat, you are correct: I had not checked that the reviews listed there were distinct. About the number of library holdings: all I can say here is that I am expressing a personal opinion based on my prior academic-related AfD experience. For scholars in humanities (and sometimes in natural/exact sciences) I always check WorldCat data. It is fairly unusual to see academic book reviews listed there at all (one typically has to do JSTOR etc searches to find the reviews in academic journals). And I had not seen a number as high as 594 in WorldCat for any academic book in any subject before. So I am inclined to give it substantial weight, especially since most holdings listed there are in academic libraries. Re UK vs US, since the subject matter is about cultural studies on U.S. and Canada, it is natural that most scholarship on these matters is done in the U.S., so the U.S. data is most relevant. Nsk92 (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A more careful search shows more academic reviews of the books mentioned above than the WorldCat data indicates. E.g. for the "Gothic passages book" we have reviews in: International Fiction Review, Humanities and Social Sciences, English Studies in Canada, ANGLES Volume III, American Literature,Poe studies, JOURNAL OF THE FANTASTIC IN THE ARTS. Nsk92 (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

CommentThanks Nsk92 for the note about protocol. I hadn't realized a nomination counted as a delete, since I can imagine nominating an entry for discussion before one has decided it ought to be deleted (when one suspects, but isn't sure, whether it should be). I am still inclined to think that the book review count is not at all out of the ordinary, and that the library holidings reflect the title/topic of his book rather than his notability, but realize that would be the kind of thing to discuss on the WP:PROF talk pages (I think that holdings are very unreliable, in that it is too easy for there to be false positives, and the criterion is much easier to meet than the other criteria). Crieff (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * keep per Nsk92's evidence that he seems above the bar for his discipline. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Nsk92's extensive evidence.John Z (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The book reviews are sufficient evidence of importance in his subject. DGG (talk) 02:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nsk92. Quote WP:PROF: It is important to note that it is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of numbers of publications or their quality: the criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field. I find the idea of "5 reviews is nuff, but if you only have 3, we'll finish you off" highly disturbing. And, concerning the validity of library holdings as an indicator: is it not better to be false positive than false negative? --Saaska (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep google scholar is no good for humanities citations. Meets WP:PROF. Protonk (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems to be notable.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by LighthouseSpider (talk • contribs) 22:37, 9 September 2008 (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.