Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thom Brooks (2nd nomination)


 * 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 delete. --Ezeu 22:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thom Brooks
This article was deleted on 12 October after a brief AfD discussion: see here. A substantially identical article was created by User:Krishnaji on 14 Oct. I nominated it for speedy deletion as a recreation of deleted material on 15 Oct. On 16 Oct, the speedy tag was removed by an anon (operating from an IP registered to Newcastle University, where the subject of the article works), with the edit summary ‘Merged pages’. Neither Krishnaji nor the anon have responded to queries on their talk pages, so I’m relisting. The reason for deletion hasn’t changed: Brooks is still a non-notable academic who fails WP:PROF. Sam Clark 17:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I also nominate the subject's books: None are particularly notable, and the articles are adverts with text taken from publishers' blurbs. Sam Clark 19:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Rousseau and Law
 * Locke and Law
 * The Legacy of John Rawls


 * Delete and protect to prevent recreation (as nominator). Sam Clark 17:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure - seems a respected academic, but probably not notable in that field. I will leave others to judge. However if he is deleted, so should be the entries on his books: Rousseau and Law, The Legacy of John Rawls and Locke and Law. Perhaps they should go even if he stays. Emeraude 19:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I hadn't spotted the books, but they should certainly go (too). I've added them to the nom. Oh, and I've just noticed that all three were created by User:Krishnaji again. I've let him/her know about this discussion. Sam Clark 19:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Sorry to see that Sam Clark finds Brooks not notable. I strongly disagree. The publications record itself is of some significance: not too many have done so much in such a short period of time. I hope Wikipedia reconsiders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishnaji (talk • contribs)


 * keep guy and merge books/delete books.  he seems to have one with a notable press. --Buridan 01:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. I don't know much about American academics, so no vote. But I would like to point out that User:Krishnaji has been adding Thom Brooks' books as references/sources/further reading in many articles which don't use any information from these books           . Even if this person is notable for Wikipedia, I think these kinds of edits are akin to external links spamming. utcursch | talk 04:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Let me just note that describing Brooks as 'non-notable' isn't an attack on him or a denigration of his work, and that Krishnaji is quite right that Brooks has an impressive publication record for someone so young. Nonetheless, there are many academics in the world, not all of us are appropriate encyclopedic subjects, and having published books (even with major publishers) should not in itself be a criterion of notability. Brooks hasn't yet added significant concepts, theories or ideas to his discipline, or written a 'must-read' book, and he's not a central figure in any of the various subjects he works on. Try googling 'philosophy punishment reading list', for instance: you'll find many mentions of Hart, Dworkin and Foucault, some of Anthony Duff, and few to none of Brooks. Cheers, Sam Clark 07:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The article does not even try to assert notability: it describes Brooks's work, but does not even try to assert the notability of either the author or the books. Krishnaji points to Brooks's prolific publication record, but that is of itsef not a criterion for notability: plenty of people work very hard and are skilled in their fields, but that does not amount to notability. As Sam Clark says, non-notability is not a denigration of someone. I'm also very concerned by utcursch's evidence of reference-spamming, which appears to me to be an attempt to use wikipedia to manufacture "evidence" of notability: there may not be a specific rule against this, but it's clearly an inappropriate practice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per WP:CSD G4 (recreation of deleted material, in this recreated by the orginal creator), and protect author and his books, per Sam Clark.


 * On the one hand, a track record of 50 peer reviewed publications is more than the average academic has. On the other hand, he got his Ph.D. in 2004, and he works in a fairly middling university. Something doesn't compute there. 50 scholarly articles in 2 years is a simply mind-boggling record, unless these are mostly 4th-rate journals. I strongly suspect that to be the case, because they don't make this list, and Harvard hasn't snapped him up. Derex 09:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is true that 50 peer reviewed articles is more than most academics has. That is surely notable and worthy of mention. Of course, Derex didn't take a close look at the list. Brooks started publishing articles in 2001, not 2004. His production of 6-8 articles per year is in line with other notable philosophers, such as Martha Nussbaum. Fourth rate journals? Since when were journals like Philosophy or Ratio or Utilitas or Journal of Social Philosophy etc 4th rate? Since when were publishers like Routledge and Blackwell 4th rate? Brooks works in philosophy which may explain why he's not on the list. To think he's not notable because either no one here knows about American academics or the worthiness of different articles is nuts. John


 * Comment. John's right about the articles being in perfectly decent journals, but I don't think that having published a large number of articles is a sufficient condition of notability. And as a matter of fact, I do know about academics in this field, since I am one. Cheers, Sam Clark 16:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete and protect from recreation. Krakatoa  Katie  11:38, 3 November 2006 (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.