Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wesley Wark


 * 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.  JGHowes   talk  01:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Wesley Wark

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The subject of the article does not meet the Wikipedia notability threshold. The article contains no evidence of any of the eight criteria for academics:
 * The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
 * The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
 * The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).
 * The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
 * The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.
 * The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
 * The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
 * The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.
 * In fact, the individual appears to have retired from a career in academia without ever being promoted to full professor. Instant Comma (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep a large percentage of tenured Canadian professors do not make it to the full professor category, so that's not particularly relevant. Regarding notability, a search turns up the fact that until fairly recently he was widely cited in the media as a security expert. The 1985 book cited in the article has something like ten indepentent reviews. When you put those together he meets GNG. --- Possibly (talk) 23:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's make that "When you put those together he meets the WP:NAUTHOR SNG", as David Epstein points out below.--- Possibly (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per WP:AUTHOR. Most of his books are edited not authored, but with many reviews for the authored book and multiple reviews each of three edited books, I think there is a good case for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, per NAUTHOR. He is also frequently cited in Canadian media as a security expert.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 06:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Comment: If we are going to assess him as an author and not an academic, does he meet the criteria for WP:AUTHOR? Is he an important figure or widely cited? Certainly, the article doesn't suggest so. Did he originate a significant new concept? There is no evidence of that. In fact, the article doesn't even mention the argument of his one authored book. Is that one authored book a significant or well-known work? Again, there is no evidence of that in the article, beyond the listing of academic reviews. Do the reviews say that it is a significant work? Once again, no evidence of that in the article. It is true, as Possibly notes above, that many Canadian academics are never promoted to full professor. It is equally true that most Canadian associate professors do not have and do not merit a Wikipedia article. Instant Comma (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I just read the cited reviews. "Interesting and well-researched piece of work" is a typical comment. The Ultimate Enemy is a standard scholarly monograph, like thousands of others that are published every year by university presses across the world, works that are sold almost solely to university libraries. Certainly, we could write a Wikipedia article for the authors of each of those books, but wouldn't that require us to rewrite the notability criteria? Instant Comma (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not to belabour the point, but I just went to the faculty listing for the history department at the University of Toronto, where Wark taught. Dimitry Anastakis is a full professor there, he holds an endowed chair, and has five books to his credit - but no Wikipedia entry. Daniel Bender is a full professor and Canada Research Chair with four books to his credit - but no Wikipedia entry. Mark McGowan is a full professor, former principal, author of five books, winner of multiple awards - but no Wikipedia entry. Sean Mills is a full professor and Canada research chair with six books - but no Wikipedia entry. Cecilia Morgan is a full professor with four books - but no Wikipedia entry. I could give at least ten more examples. Even in his own department, Wesley Wark wasn't particularly significant. Instant Comma (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Instant Comma please don't vote twice, your nomination already counts as a vote. As for your claims on other academics, see WP:OSE, though you do make a compelling point they pass notability and would be kept at AfD if written (e.g. name chairs pass NACADEMIC).-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 07:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I am new to this process and didn't realize that I couldn't vote on an article I had nominated. I have changed my vote to a comment. Instant Comma (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - A quick Canadian Proquest search finds 3,936 results, including 2,676 newspapers, 431 historical newspapers, and 373 wire feeds. Scanning down the list, all seem to be the same guy, from 1988 to last week - other than a single March 1926 hit in a Toronto Globe obituary. I've honestly never seen so many hits in a Canadian AFD. Given the comments above, I'm stopping there, saying Keep, and criticizing User:Instant Comma for a big BEFORE failure. Nfitz (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned before, I'm new to this, so you'll have to explain what a "big BEFORE failure" is. Instant Comma (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the shorthand, User:Instant Comma. BEFORE is WP:BEFORE; the 17 things listed at WP:AFD one should do before nominating an article for deletion. In particular D.1. It's not just enough that the article isn't good enough (and it likely wasn't). Listing at AFD requires that the article can't be improved to be good enough. If it can be improved, one should follow WP:ATD and improve the article, instead of deleting it. Nfitz (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per David Eppstein. Book has 230+ citations on GS. Dr. Universe (talk) 04:13, 29 May 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.