Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Stam


 * 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. Passes WP:NPROF.

Thanks everyone for participating. Unhappy with this decision? If one wishes to renominate this article with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. I will defer to other administrators to review it. I will not re-review my decision. Happy holidays. Missvain (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Robert Stam

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article has absolutely zero independent sources cited to demonstrate notability. Even without sources, I don't see evidence that the subject of this article meets WP:NPROF inclusion criteria. No objection to draftifying if the subject turns out to be notable. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:PROF for being a Guggenheim Fellow and WP:PROF for being a University Professor at NYU . His textbook Film Theory: An Introduction has been repeatedly reprinted since 1999 and translated into Chinese . The article needs editing for tone and the removal of links directly to publishers' websites, but that's a fairly straightforward fix. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete This article needs to be seriously re-written and cut back, there are large blocks of text about his work, with basically no references for the bulk of it. His notability is supported by the awards, and its clear he has written a number of books, some of which may be of note....*BUT* apart from that, there is little independent RS I can see that establishes his notability. For someone (apparently) of note like this, I would of expected more RS. He has very few articles indexed in Google Scholar - if he is a noted academic, he should have a body of published articles indicative of his research. He has no author profile on GS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Google Scholar isn't the be-all and end-all. In the humanities, where we tend to look for book publications first and journal articles second, it is often not very useful. Nor is failing to create a profile there a strike against him. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, fair enough, Google scholar is not the be and end all, so I looked at some other citation databases.As he has few results on Google scholar - I searched Ebsco's Academic Search complete for articles he's written. I got *zero* results. I checked Scopus, he has 33 articles in that, which is not many - and they are not well cited, a total of only 423 cites for 33 article... but nearly half of those go to two articles. His published article work is NOT well cited. Simply publishing books is not necessarily a measure of notability. The books may not be well regarded, or of consequence to their field, or published by a notable publisher. If those books are held in high regard, or show that he has made a notable contribution to their field, then they should be. Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Reviews of Reflexivity in Film and Literature (787 citations on GS): . Reviews of Subversive Pleasures:, etc. Reviews of Tropical Multiculturalism (403 citations on GS): , etc. That's enough for WP:AUTHOR, and I'd say it's what passing WP:PROF looks like in the humanities (which are much more book-oriented than the physical sciences). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Holds the title of university professor, so satisfies WP:NPROF #5. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * see WP:NPROF#5, simply being a professor does *not* fulfill #5: "The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment", a named chair is quite different from a regular professor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannes Röst (talk • contribs)
 * In this case, "University Professor" is a title analogous to "distinguished professor" . XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. clearly passes WP:NPROF (thousands of citations in a low citation field) and WP:NAUTHOR, he has multiple independent reviews of his books:        among many others. --hroest 16:28, 22 December 2021 (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.