Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Schadla-Hall


 * 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. v/r - TP 14:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Tim Schadla-Hall

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Professor of archaeology that does not appear to meet the general notability guideline nor the guidelines of WP:PROF: The only current source on the page is a link to his university profile. Given the above, I support the deletion of the article. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Publications in Google Scholar do not seem to suggest he is highly cited in the field. Although he has a number of publications and books, these do not appear to be strongly notable works in the field.
 * The professor has not won any awards.
 * He has not been elected to any prestigious organizations, nor been named a Distinguished Professor, and does not appear to have made any great impact outside his discipline.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: I think Schadla-Hall's editorship of the journal Public Archaeology is enough to pass WP:Prof. (Msrasnw (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC))
 * Comment I appreciate the research legwork and finding his editorship (I had no idea). I was going to withdraw the nomination, but I don't think Public Archaeology is a "major well-established academic journal in their subject area" according to WP:PROF.  Since its first publication 10 years ago, it has published 60 articles, but articles from the journal have been cited only 27 times.  Furthermore, out of all the publications in archaeology, it ranks #45.  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 01:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply: I think the journal may well be more important in a narrower subject area rather than all of archaeology. That is it might well be a leading journal in the subject area of public policy and archaeology. I am also dubious about figures for citations you quote. I think they are not likely to be correct. I have had a quick look at a few articles and clicked on their citations in google scholar and their citation count sum to 100 which is a lot bigger than 27. Several articles are fairly well cited eg
 * * Making things public: archaeologies of the Spanish Civil WarA González-Ruibal - Public Archaeology, 2007 33 citations
 * * Iraq, stewardship and &# 8216; the record&# 8217;: An ethical crisis for archaeology Y Hamilakis - Public Archaeology, 2003 35 citations
 * * Archaeology from below N Faulkner - Public Archaeology, 2000 29 citations
 * I think our having an article on the journal is indicative of its notability but I realize such an argument might easily be attacked. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC))


 * Weak keep. Has an h-index of 4, based on GS; which may not be the best indicator, given the subject’s field. Most widely held book in libraries, Art treasures and war (not the lead author on this one), currently in about 100 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat. The book Tom Sheppard: Hull's great collector, which is cited in the article prominently as an indication of notability, is in less than 20 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat. The journal Public Archaeology has about 1.62 citations per article on average; not sure if this would qualify under WP:PROF criterion #8 (editor-in-chief of established journal). All in all, probably qualifies under WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed), but not in a very strong way.--Eric Yurken (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2011 (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.