Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Murdoch


 * 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. Black Kite 00:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Steve Murdoch

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unfortunately, the notability of the subject has not been demonstrated. There are many historians and scholars out there and this article says nothing of how its subject stands apart from the countless mass of past or present "scholars." I would suggest that the author of this article do a bit more research on his topics before starting articles of dubious value. Torkmann (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Qworty (talk) 03:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions.  —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Provisional keep because of presumption of likely satisfaction of WP:PROF, borderline "speedy keep" because of its inference of lack of good faith in nomination, such lack which can be inferred by the obvious (by the wording of the nomination) lack of the nominator's doing any WP:BEFORE. Request someone with access to citation databases review the subject's full publication list for references. Bongo  matic  10:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A Google Scholar search doesn't bring up many citations. 15, 9, 8, 7, 7 are the top items. CronopioFlotante (talk) 12:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I have placed a stub tag on the article. The article describes the subject as a "reader": this is a senior academic post in a UK university.  The award of this status by his university ought to be sufficient to demonstate his notability.  WE are not talking about a school teacher who writes a couple of books!  The (open access) Royal Historical Society bibliography lists 37 works by him from 1996 to 2008: this should be ample tp prove notability.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - A reading of the article Reader (academic rank) suggests it does not satisfy WP:ACADEMIC criterion 5, to which I assume you were referring. Barring some specific evidence of the University of St Andrews being a contra-example, "reader" is generally a position below "Chair" or "Distinguished Professor". - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: As per Bongo. Maybe his page at the U St. Andrews will help. - BalthCat (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The low citation count suggests that WP:PROF#1 is not satisfied. There is no evidence of notability under any other item in WP:PROF. Searching for "Steve Murdoch" + "Scotland" (here) or + "history" (here) at Google News doesn't turn up much that would point towards notability as an expert on the history of Scotland who is frequently cited in the media. CronopioFlotante (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 *  Weak Keep. LP works in an obscure subject that may be not be expected to garner many cites. Info about library holdings would be useful. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC).
 * Delete - There's no evidence of Murdoch passing WP:N through multiple significant independent reliable sources, and the article does not make any claim against any criterion of WP:ACADEMIC. (Specifically, his position of reader appears to fall short of criterion 5, there's no sufficent mass of citation provided to suggest he meets criterion 1,   and no suggestion that he'd meet any other criterion.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep (vote changed) - per arguments of DGG below, he appears to narrowly pass either or both of WP:N or WP:ACADEMIC criterion 1. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets all requirements for notability and verifiability. I have a sneaking feeling that Torkmann and Drawn Some are the same person. Both are wikistalking me and nominating my articles for deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Richard, I note you are the creator of the article and as such could possibly have valuable insight. How do you say this article meets "all requirements for notability and verifiability"? - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete only limited coverage. gnews, don't see evidence how it meets specific criteria of WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 02:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I do not  accept Reader as necessarily notable, though I would accept Senior Reader in a major research university. But this p[articular Reader    is notable, since he has written three academic books, and co-edited another. That many published books would make him notable either as an academic or as an author, especially since at least one of them has 4 reviews.   .  Scotland and the Thirty Years' War, 1618-1648  108 WirldCat locations, & WorldCat shows his book has been reviewed in The Sixteenth century journal. 35, no. 1, (2004): 199; Journal of Military History, 67, no. 1 (2003): 226-227, Scottish historical review. 83, no. 216, (2004): 244; Scottish Economic & social History,no. 22, Part 1 (2002): 88-89.  Britain, Denmark-Norway and the House of Stuart, 1603-1660 : a diplomatic and military analysis, about 40 holdings. Network north : Scottish kin, commercial and covert associations in Northern Europe, 1603-1746 54 WorldCat locations. ;  co editorship of another Scottish communities abroad in the early modern period. His principal publisher, Brill, is a major academic publisher for this sort of topic.  Considering the specialized of the overall subject  I  would consider this certainly enough to show expert status is his subject. (And I have not  checked comprehensively for US or European holdings, which is more difficult, nor for reviews of the other books.)  In addition there is the joint work on  Scotland, Scandinavia and Northern European Biographical Database  ; the copyright is in his name.  BTW, G News archive is sometimes helpful in finding book reviews for US books, but otherwise is useless in dealing  with WP:PROF, as contrasted with WP:BIO, for which it is invaluable.       DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Request for clarification - sorry, DGG, just to clarify the above, are you saying he's written one book "Scotland and the Thirty Years' War", with reviews in Journal of Military history, etc; or that he's written a selection of books and articles including "Journal of Military History", "Scottish Economic & Social History", etc? (The latter would pass the broad definition for WP:ACADEMIC and possibly also criterion 1, the former may or may not.)  Also, when you say "expert status", are you referring to any particular policy?  I'm not aware of it being a criterion under WP:ACADEMIC or elsewhere but I stand to be corrected. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * He was written 3 books and co-edited another. Of these books, I have found multiple reviews for one of them--I have not looked comprehensively for find reviews for the other ones, partly because what I found already is I think sufficient in that direction. The four journals mentioned are journals that reviewed his book, not articles he has published. "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." is what I summarize as being an expert in his subject. The independent reliable sources are: 1/ the peer reviewers and editors who accepted and published the 4 books--academic books these days normally need 3 or 4 positive reviews to be accepted for publication. 2/The book reviewers writing in significant academic journals 3/the people who have cited the books--very difficult to find in this subject comprehensively, but the GScholar results are indicative. 4/the hundreds of librarians and faculty advisors in academic libraries who have selected the books for purchase--how libraries do this varies, but at least one person in each must have positively selected the book for each of them. (as a guide, at the most academically stringent universities, the basic criterion for permanent tenure is 2 books; at most universities it can be fewer.  From the way the article was written, I carelessly assumed at first there was 1 book with 1 significant review only, in which case i would have said delete.  Fortunately I actually looked at the sources before giving my first assumptions.  DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for the clarification. I've changed my opinion above accordingly to "weak keep" on the basis of your arguments. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Week Keep per Dust and DGG.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe we now have sufficient evidence of his academic notability, which was not present at the time Torkmann nominated. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, Remember it is the topic that is, or, is not notable, not the state of the article at any given time. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Response. But also remember that the article must at least demonstrate some prima facie evidence of notability.  Many of your articles do not.  No offense.  Torkmann (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like a combination of ignorance and harassment to me:
 * Articles for deletion/Richard H. Sylvester
 * Articles for deletion/W. L. Shurtleff
 * Articles for deletion/Hiram Boardman Conibear
 * Articles for deletion/Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia Chiefs
 * Articles for deletion/Suffrage Hike. Where you wrote: "How is this notable or memorable? I say that is it no different than any of the other myriad women's rights caterwauling that's been going on for the last several hundred years. No different than an article on 'Molly's bra burning at the Bush second inauguration party, 2004, Salem, Mass.' Sourcing seems a bit suspect as well. Rubbish." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep DGG convinced me. Reader in this case does indicated a notable person, all requirements are thus met.   D r e a m Focus  10:12, 12 November 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.