Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Patton (archaeologist)


 * 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. No reason to prolong this further. No clear consensus for deletion. Lots of good arguments for keep outcome. It is entirely possible that my original non-admin close could be considered as over the line in terms of contentiousness, I feel some confidence in closing this discussion now. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Mark Patton (archaeologist)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Subject fails WP:AUTHOR with no secondary coverage. Books by this author are cited by reviews in the single-digits. Yoninah (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  —Yoninah (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep As I mentioned when removing the earlier PROD, the relevant guideline is WP:ACADEMIC, and as a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts Patton meets criteria 3. The lack of sources does need to be addressed, but note that, also per WP:ACADEMIC, coverage in secondary sources is not a requirement. joe&bull;roet&bull;c 21:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * But there is no reference to verify that he's a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. Yoninah (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete More fundamentally, that the Royal Society of Arts "has more than 27,000 Fellows...who have achieved — or who have the potential to achieve — eminence in their profession or calling" tells us that being one of its Fellows isn't the kind "highly selective honor" called for in WP:ACADEMIC. -- post by 75.150.76.129 -- sorry, I forgot to sign
 * Comment: I prodded this originally because I could not find sources beyond the fact that he's done research on the Channel Islands.  My main concern was getting it off the unreferenced BLP list (now down to less than 1,000!), so am open to keeping of verifiability and bare notability can be shown.--Milowent • talkblp-r  02:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Due to addition of sources, I am not opposed to keeping it. He may still be marginal, but I'm not sure enough of that to advocate deletion.--Milowent • talkblp-r  11:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: From the General notes section of WP:ACADEMIC: It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources exist; see Verifiability. For the routine uncontroversial details of a career, official institutional and professional sources are accepted as sourcing for those details. So, no sources no keep. As for the unsigned delete vote above, WP:ACADEMIC does mention being an elected member of the Royal Society as a qualification, the subject of this article is aledgedly an elected member of the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures & Commerce, I do not know enough about these institutions to say if one is more prestegious or selective than the other, but again without verification the article should not be kept. J04n(talk page) 16:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures & Commerce is a royal society, but it's not The Royal Society (i.e. The Royal Society of London for the Improvement of Natural Knowledge), which is the one WP:ACADEMIC means (and links to -- see Royal_Society_(disambiguation)). It's confusing, I know.  (That's not to say that none of the "other" Royal Societies of This and That might not qualify as WP:ACADEMIC's "highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association," but Arts, Manuf., & Commerce certainly doesn't -- see earlier post.)   75.150.76.129 (talk) 21:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: His work on the Archaeology of the Channel isles seems respected with his books having been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews (American Journal of Archaeology, American Antiquity, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, Journal of Anthropological Research). I have added some to the article. This seems to me a clear pass of WP:Author#3. Being elected as a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts and as governor of the Museum of London also help.(Msrasnw (talk) 10:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC))
 * These one-page reviews are the kind routinely made of most new books in many disciplines -- not what WP:AUTHOR has in mind. Re the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures & Commerce, see two posts above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.150.76.129 (talk • contribs)
 * Thank you for adding sources!--Milowent • talkblp-r 11:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC).
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 19:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment As a non-admin, I previously closed this procedure. At the request of an editor, I've reopened and relisted this discussion for further comment. BusterD (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * weak delete I'm not seeing the reviews as meeting WP:GNG for the author. I'm also not seeing the fellow as being as selective as, say, an IEEE fellowship or anything else I'd consider to meet the intent of WP:ACADEMIC.  It is close and with primary sources we can get there, but I just don't see the sources needed. Hobit (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with Msrasnw. If his books get covered, he is notable.   D r e a m Focus  23:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I was confused by the cites to the reviews which seem to list him as an author of the reviews. I've (finally) gotten access to at least a few and I have to agree, the reviews are independent.  Hobit (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per sources added to article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sources added to article demonstrate his notability. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep As with Hobbit, I feel the reviews demonstrate the notability  DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 16 September 2011 (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.