Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert N. Zeitlin


 * 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   no consensus. As a whole, participants in this discussion have not come to a conclusion over whether he is notable per WP:PROF. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Robert N. Zeitlin

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Speedy declined. No external sources in article, can't find coverage outside of research area in reliable sources Cynof  G  avuf 12:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. He's an emeritus professor at a proper university, which satisfies WP:ACADEMIC - The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society. The article needs major surgery, of course. andy (talk) 13:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Major highest level" refers to presidents and chancellors of universities, not just retired faculty. So he clearly does not satisfy this criterion of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice to re-creating in proper form. This is not an article, it is an excerpt from a resume. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * changing to Keep. Article is now a proper stub. Subject seems sufficiently notable. Thanks to whoever did the work. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's now an article. Do you change your mind about your vote? --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 06:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 *  Keep  Delete - he's not a cartoon, doesn't belong. Less work to rewrite it than to discuss it, but so easy to nominate for deletion. Then who comes back and recreates it? He's an academic, well-known, not a video game character. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 05:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right. I for one am tired of all the trivia on Wikipedia. This article was a mess but now is a proper stub. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It's time to close this one. The nominator's assertions are either not criteria for deletion or false; the professor appears to be, from google searches, a fairly well-known archaeologist. The article needs sourced. Maybe if there were fewer editors discussing this, someone could find time to source the article. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't see any reason to close this early, as notability has not been clearly established. The title of Professor Emeritus simply means that the subject continues to do some teaching and/or research after retirement - it is not "a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post". Phil Bridger (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, professor is, and to be a professor emeritus, you have to be a professor first. Notability must be asserted, and it is, as he is a well known Mesoamerican archaeologist. If he were from a better known university this debate would probably not be happening. Look at a google search on him. The article just needs references. But, I'm too busy fighting to keep the article right now to be able to spend any time referencing it. This is a waste of good editing time. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —Phil Bridger (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, I don't see how this one passes PROF. Using GS, I see an h-index of 6, with the highest cited at 19.  No other indication of notability that I can see.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Measures of citability such as H-index, G-index, etc, may be used as a rough guide in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied, but they should be approached with considerable caution since their validity is not, at present, widely accepted, and since they depend substantially on the source indices used." So, post a link to your h-index search and assert its validity. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 08:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete in the absence of evidence that he passes WP:PROF. The citation record isn't strong enough to convince me that he passes criterion #1 of WP:PROF and I don't see anything else. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an act of futility if you're not a character from some tv show no scientist have ever heard of. He's a leading American expert in mesoamerica, yet his article will be deleted. Why? Because of his h-index, which Nomoskedasticity hasn't even linked to, or established the validity of? A single criterion for to delete a researcher by a group of editors who don't know or care about Mesoamerican archaeology. This is why experts leave wikipedia: they're not cartoons, or anime, so they're not wanted. I gotta quit, too. This is absurd. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The h-index is not a reason for deleting. It could be a reason for keeping, if it were large enough to show evidence that his expertise has had some impact, but it isn't. The reason for deleting is that there is no clear reason to keep. "He's a leading expert" needs to be justified somehow; without evidence it's not much help. Here's my evidence: I searched Google scholar for "mesoamerica" and his name didn't appear in the first 100 hits, so I'm not at all convinced that he really is a leading expert in the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And I searched google scholar for mesoamerica trade and he was a reference in 4 of the first 20 resources (I only checked 6 of the first 20). I could find extremely notable scientists who don't get hits in the first 100 of the broadest possible search you can enter for him. He's an expert in his field, not in the entire aspect of Mesoamerica which includes not just archeology, but geology, history, settlement, botany. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Comment. Does not make it on GS cites so delete unless other evidence emerges. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC).
 * did you by any chance look at the GS results, ? I see about 80 items, including references to him. And since he was born in 1935, so GS will not even cover most of his career. some things Google S  does, and some things it does not cover.    DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did, but, as noted by others, cites are very low. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC).

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 18:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The citability is not high, and there is no evidence in the record of passing any other criteria of WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no evidence of notability given at all. Weak Keep in the light of DGG's comments, and I greatly respect DGG's judgement. NBeale (talk) 23:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The Google search referred to above shows him the author of a standard review in one of the Cambridge Histories, "The Paleoindian and Archaic Cultures of Mesoamerica" in  The Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of the Americas,  Volume 2 Part 1 (Mesoamerica) (2000) by Robert N. Zeitlin and Judith Francis Zeitlin. Digital Object Identifier (DOI) 10.1017/CHOL9780521351652.003. A search in WorldCat  shows at least 5 books. Including the GS search, that's enough to show he was regarded as an authority in his subject. Emeritus Professor is only rarely given to other than full professors; Brandeis is a moderately important research university. I am considerably more willing to accept their standards for who is notable in the academic world than that of the editors here.    DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt the folks at Brandeis who decided to make him emeritus professor had notability on their minds. 160.39.212.108 (talk) 13:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Being Emeritus in the US has nothing to do with standards; it just means you're retired. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment for the record, ive added external link to his position at brandeis and his contribution to a major work on menoamerican history. 50 google scholar hits, 700 for his full name + anthropology on google. im sorry, this is one of the silliest debates ive seen yet on WP. I know, ill get a job at Nintendo, and create a Pokemon called Zeitlino, THEN he'll be notable. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep DGG makes some good points.  The article needs some more meat, but it appears the subject is indeed notable, the proper references just need to be found.  Click23 (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per arguments from DGG, Click23, Mercurywoodrose et al. Meets notability criteria for contributions to his field. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hullabaloo and all he cites.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: per DGG - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per he's not notable. The field of anthropology gets fewer citations than others, but this guy has been around for decades and has only 19, 12, 9, 9, 7, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2. I'll bet I can find a case with a similar citation record that DGG voted to delete. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep h-index arguments not validated. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 06:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * h-index arguments are believed by quite a few editors, and articles get deleted because of them. Therefore they are valid, by consensus. In any case, I did not make an h-index argument here, I made a this-guy-is-a-underachiever argument. He-has-contributed-less-than-the-average-professor-at-his-career-level. He's-not-notable. Abductive  (reasoning) 07:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your arguments remain unsupported by evidence, therefore not validated. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My evidence is that this topic does not pass the WP:PROF guideline. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per DGG. Lithorien (talk) 13:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think the above argument of "contributed-less-than-the-average-professor-at-his-career-level" is about right. The man is already retired, so his record can be viewed in toto. WoS shows his most-cited work (16 citations) is a 1982 paper in American Antiquity. The citation list is 16, 10, 10, 9, 4, 3, 1, 0, 0, ... (using "Author=(Zeitlin R*) Refined by: Subject Areas=(ANTHROPOLOGY OR HISTORY OR ARCHAEOLOGY) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI") for an h-index of only 4 and a total citation count of only around 50. Even for an arguably lower-citation field, these numbers seem really low to qualify for notability when considered over an entire academics career of decades. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC).
 * Delete per Lithorien. 160.39.212.108 (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2009 (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.