Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert E. Lee Chadwick


 * 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Robert E. Lee Chadwick

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The only external link doesn't mention Chadwick, and the only mentions online are simple references to authorship. Nothing in WP:NACADEMICS seems to apply. Star Garnet (talk) 05:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, there is enough reference to his work, only in English and only from the first Google page  , meaning he passes criterion 1 of WP:NACADEMIC.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, Scouring JSTOR and Google Scholar for "Robert E Lee Chadwick", "Robert E L Chadwick", "Robert E Chadwick", "Robert Chadwick", "REL Chadwick", "RE Chadwick", "R E L Chadwick" and "R E Chadwick" turns up a paper with one citation, one with eight , a page-long response that mentions him in passing and  (pdf), which politely calls him out for unfounded conclusions. That points towards a below-average rate of notability for a professor. Somewhere between 80% and 90% of my professors and lab instructors have a greater citations, and except for a couple, I don't believe they hold sufficient notability for Wikipedia (and only three do). He doesn't appear to have a definable, let alone significant impact on his field, even when you zoom down to its most detailed level. Star Garnet (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In humanities, and in particular in archaeology, books are more common means of communication than articles, and they do not always make it to citation databases.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Which is perhaps my point. Unless someone finds those perhaps nonexistent books, there isn't reason to believe that this guy is notable. That seems like a leap of faith, not dependence on reliable sources. Star Garnet (talk) 07:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that something does not appear in citation indices is a problem over the coverrage of those indices, which are much more geared to science than some other subjects. Non-appearance in such indices is not evidnce of non-existence, merely that they are less comprehensive than some would believe.  Since his subject was the pre-Hispanic Andes, I cannot carry out checks in more specialised indices that I would use for British hiostry and archaeology.  Peterkingiron (talk) 09:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep -- This is a significnat body of work. BAR is not the most prestigious publication, but the fact that someone should think it worthwhile editing his work after his death points to its significance.  Peterkingiron (talk) 09:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that this is a significant body of work. I've added two career references. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2015 (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.