Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Johnston (author)


 * 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   delete. NW ( Talk ) 21:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Paul Johnston (author)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non notable, unreferenced biography of a local politician (wrong article) academic. Viridae Talk 06:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Not a politician to start. Highly published academic.  Too far out of my field to know if he's highly cited, but he's certainly prolific in peer-reviewed journals. Hobit (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- - Spaceman  Spiff  08:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- - Spaceman  Spiff  08:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know much about this subject, so I remain neutral here, just a remark about the comment posted by Hobit just above: publishing is what academics do. If those publications go unremarked (as most actually do), that does not establish notability. So the fact that this person has published in and of itself does not make him notable (and it isn't that much either, my current postdoc has as many publications as he). What is needed to establish notability is evidence that his publications have impacted/influenced others. --Crusio (talk) 11:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * True, which is why I'm unable to evaluate his impact. I _think_ this guy has about 40-60 publications, but I'm really not sure as the name is too common.  If  you've got a post-doc with that many, the economy must be worse than I thought... In any case, there are reviews of his books  and the like.  I don't know how to compute an "h index" for such a common name, but  indicates he's got at least one book with a large number of cites. Hobit (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Even when the economy was better... I had 43 publications when I got my first faculty position... (Anyway, I was referring to the number of publications listed in the article). The book has 150 cites (according to Google Scholar, which I find notoriously unreliable, but at least it's an approximation). That's nice, but one book with that number of cites is not enough to establish notability, I think. You yourself say that you're "unable to evaluate his impact", so I wondered why you vote "keep", is all. --Crusio (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I'll go with "I'm unable to be sure" in this field. In my field (computer engineering) I'd call it a clear keep.  I'm trying to be clear that I'm willing to be wrong on this one but my limited knowledge of the topic puts him in the notable category.  And people publish that many papers in neuroscience?  Note to self: don't change fields.  Hobit (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lack of references that demonstrate notability that has been established by reliable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Added some more info and biog and Book and link to Book Review (Msrasnw (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC))
 * Keep His book has been widely reviewed in peer reviewed acadmic journals and has been widely cited and used. This alone seems enough to pass our test of notability (Msrasnw (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC))
 * Delete - Academic with no significant 3rd party coverage. EeepEeep (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, one book, otherwise I don't see anything to pass WP:PROF. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I can see that this article is one that might with effort be saved. He is not just an academic, so someone needs to look into the union organizer part of his career as well as other aspects. Unfortunately I do have the time or knowledge to try to save it. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  01:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Such a common name that it is hard to be clear about what on the web is his. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC).
 * Weak delete per WP:BIO1E. The reviews for it make a plausible case that we could have an article about his book, but that's the only thing that seems notable here. It doesn't seem that he passes WP:PROF for anything else. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2010 (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.