Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Bagley


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Robert Bagley

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Notability not shown in article. Refs provided either don't mention him at all (3) or only list him as the author of a book or publication. Only 1 ref mentions him in a manner that would support notability, and it is a passing mention. Fails WP:PROF. GregJackP  Boomer!   03:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

More references to support notability are now added. Being the author and contributor of some ground breaking publications, e.g. The Cambridge History of Ancient China, undoubtedly suggests the authority of Bagley in the field of Chinese art history and archaeology (Pavise (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC))
 * If refs to reliable sources are added, I will withdraw my nomination. I couldn't find anything, but it could very well be due to the common name and the fact that I didn't go deep into the search results.   GregJackP   Boomer!   04:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I think there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Robert Bagley is a personage of certain degree of notability. I look forward to seeing you to withdraw the nomination. (Pavise (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC))

Also I am courious why someone like Sawyer is granted a wiki page. (Pavise (talk) 08:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC))
 * No one is granted a wiki page, there is a page on "Sawyer" because someone bothered to create one. Hairhorn (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Full professor at Princeton goes a long way to passing wp:prof all on its own. Add on books for Harvard and Cornell, a book chapter for Cambridge, this isn't exactly a clear-cut delete. Would still appreciate some third party refs, though. Hairhorn (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I apologise that I did not present my point clearly. I simply find its interesting that a man like Sawyer, who is certainly a scholar, but obviously much less notable, has a wiki entry without conspicuous debate. Why should the entry of Robert Bagley, a full professor at Princeton and a respected authority in the field of Chinese art history and archaeology, be controversial? (Pavise (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC))
 * There's no central force at work that decides one scholar is somehow more notable than another. Anyone can make a page, and anyone can nominate it for deletion, so the existence (or not) of other pages isn't all that relevant. Hairhorn (talk) 03:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Can we reach an agreement that it is appropriate to withdraw the nomination? (Pavise (talk) 04:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC))


 * AFDs normally run for a week and operate by consensus; I don't see an urgent need to close this one. Hairhorn (talk) 11:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - at this time I don't see a need to withdraw my nomination. Of the refs added, several were mere statements that Bagley authored a book, which does nothing towards establishing notability.  Of the Chinese language cites, one was behind a paywall, but appeared from the summary to be acceptable, as did the other one.  Please take a look at WP:PROF and see if you can find a reference that supports any of the criteria listed.  How many times has his work been cited, and where (peer-reviewed journals and academic books are best)?  Any major academic awards?  Is he a member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association?  Are any of his books used as textbooks at multiple universities?  Does he hold a named chair appointment or "distinguished professor" appointment at Princeton?  Has he been the chief editor at a major academic publication?  At the current point, most of the refs a useless as far as establishing notability, and there is nothing in the prose to assert notability.  Although being a professor at Princeton goes towards showing notability, it does not by itself (or with the books) establish it.  I will also take a look at the Sawyer article - if it doesn't show notability, I'll either PROD or AFD it.   GregJackP   Boomer!   12:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. New references regarding ''2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.'' have been added. (Pavise (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC))


 * Strong Keep -- full professor at Princeton; gobs of citations in JSTOR alone including five reviews of his books in substantial journals. More than enough for WP:PROF#C1. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Hegvald (talk) 06:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Hegvald (talk) 06:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The publications list shows he gets all the top commissions to write in English on Chinese ritual bronzes, an important area (and it would be nice to have some attention to that btw). Johnbod (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2012 (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.