Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Connelly (historian)


 * 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. John254 01:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Mark Connelly (historian)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete Written a couple of books, not much else, doesn't really meet notability for academics. Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - unless these books are highly-regarded, widely-cited, or otherwise notable, he fails WP:PROF. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A quick Google Books search will show that each of his books is used as a source in other works:, , . So far, I've found one actual review , though I'd be surprised if there isn't at least one other review out there somewhere. Zagalejo^^^ 05:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, here are three other reviews:, , . Zagalejo^^^ 05:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the standards in his field of study, but I'm not sure that qualifies as widely cited or highly regarded. I've changed my vote to weak, pending the existence of possible improvements to the article that firmly establish notability per WP:PROF. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep He doesn't have to score the winning goal in the F.A. Cup final to make it as an historian and writer here. Nick mallory (talk) 09:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No one is making that assertion. Please try to provide a "keep" rationale that includes a reason, not a sarcastic exaggeration. It will help your case, if you want the article to be kept (as would improving the article itself, if possible). --Cheeser1 (talk) 09:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My point, which despite my 'exaggeration' you appear to have missed entirely, is that dismissing a historian and writer because he's an academic who has 'written a couple of books' is rather strange. There are several sources giving third party reviews of his work and that is usually taken as proof of notability.  I might note that you are, theoretically at least, as capable of searching for sources or improving this article as anybody else is.  I did add some of the sources found by Zagalejo to the article at the time of my first comment by the way, but you were possibly too busy writing that note suggesting I add some sources to the article to notice.  Nick mallory (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF much? --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep He is now not merely Reader in History at Kent, but Professor--which is head of the department and the most prestigious post in the university in the subject. Besides working in military history, he is Reuters Lecturer in Media History there.  (I recall this is the UK academic pattern, where there is only one professor.)  The books and the reviews support this. His peers regard him as notable, and they are the ones to decide: notability is within the profession. We don't decide who's a good ball-player, and we don't decide who's a good historian. The baseball teams decide, and the universities. We just record it. I found the up-to-date website, and added his other books.- There are actually nine of them, the most recent by Oxford University Press.   In my experience, many pages on academics are done very carelessly, and it is worth looking for up-to-date information. I can sympathize with Nick's impatience. DGG (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - I've changed my vote based on what DGG just said and the improvements made to the article (but no thanks to the rude response by Nick mallory). --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Professorship and publications confer sufficient notability per WP:PROF ("the academic is more notable than the average college instructor/professor") Skomorokh  incite 20:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, per WP:PROF, and he seems ntable due to the volume of publications.  WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN  play it cool.  ☆ 21:22, 10 January 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.