Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilt L. Idema


 * 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 as per unanimous consensus that affirmed notability as per Wikipedia's editorial requirements. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Wilt L. Idema

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Sources listed include his own CV and a book in which he is listed as one of the authors, failing WP:SP. Only 6 GNews sources, 3 of which are from his school, and 2 of which are foreign language (only meaning that I can't verify their contents). Prolific writer, but I was unable to find any reviews or sources discussing the works. GregJackP  Boomer!   23:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Question?. It is a bold step to nominate the BLP of a full Harvard professor for AfD. Would the nominator like to give us his assessment of the subject's citation record on Google scholar and Web of Knowledge in this low cited field? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC).
 * Keep A Festschrift was published in his honor. This meets one of the requirements of WP:PROF, by showing that he is regarded as distinguished in his field. It also meets the requirements of the GNG--a book published about someone is a RS for notability.  (btw, a  Festschrift always lists the honoree as one of the authors, because that's one of the LC cataloging rules. Normally, it contains reprints of some of his papers as well as the papers of others published in his honor and prominently mentioning his work,  and  one or more long essays about him. ) I ask the nominee if they propose to nominate everything using sources they cannot themselves read.    DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose deletion WP:ACADEMIC says "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." At the Wilt Idema talk page I've added a list of six of the criteria which he meets. ch (talk)
 * Keep per DGG. For convenience, here is a link to the Google Books page for the Festschrift mentioned by DGG: . --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Membership in KNAW is enough for WP:PROF and for me, even if he hadn't also passed all those other criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep. To add to the above, his books are widely held by institutions (satisfying WP:PROF c1). for example: 667, 946, 349, 613, 207, etc. Might be appropriate for nom to withdraw this in the face of such conclusive evidence. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC).
 * Note to Nominator: It is okay to cite to subject's own website for basic facts. So one of the criteria you note in your deletion suggestion, "Sources listed include his own CV and a book in which he is listed as one of the authors, failing WP:SP." doesn't really matter for an assessment of notability.  These comments do relate to notability -- "Only 6 GNews sources, 3 of which are from his school, and 2 of which are foreign language (only meaning that I can't verify their contents).  Prolific writer, but I was unable to find any reviews or sources discussing the works. " -- but you should know that Google News is not the best place to look for citations regarding academics.  Looking in Google Scholar is slightly better but quite variable depending on field. I venture to say that "Chinese literature studies" is not an area that is going to be well represented in google scholar, so you probably want to try MLA or similar databases. If you can't access these to verify lack of notability for yourself then I would start with a notability template rather than an AFD -- because the search you described is not adequate for assessing notability or lack of it. --Lquilter (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nom has not answered my question after the 24 hour sleep cycle about LP's citation record. I will answer myself: the cites are excellent for a low cited field and pass WP:Prof. In addition to the library holdings the festschrift shows clearly that the LP is a major authority in the field. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC).
 * Absolute and total Keep -- at the top of the field of Chinese literature studies -- Festschrift and position definitely argue for notability as do the specific quotes cited attributing to his contributions. Far far above the cutoff for notability for a professor. Suggest early close if an uninvolved admin reads. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Addendum: JSTOR lists at least a dozen reviews of Idema at JSTOR Beta Search Wilt Idema ch (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2013 (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.