Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ACS Peacock
- 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
ACS Peacock
Was dePRODed. Concern was=No coverage by independent reliable sources. No indication that it meets WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 15:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 15:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Delete: None of the sources added are independent. It does not seem to meet any of the requirements ofgeneral notability guidelines. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)]
- Keep: The new sources added, particularly the reviews are sufficient to meet WP:AUTHOR so I am happy to change my !vote. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)]
- Keep: The new sources added, particularly the reviews are sufficient to meet
- Keep: The subject is verifably Professor of Middle Eastern and Islamic History at University of St Andrews, with books published by Oxford University Press [1], in the Proceedings of the British Academy [2], and by Edinburgh University Press [3]. His field of expertise is rather specialist but his publications are reviewed within their field. See the several journal reviews references in the article. And although the full article is paywalled, the portion of Jürgen Paul's Journal of Islamic Studies article which is visible here includes this assessment: "...Peacock’s two volumes form the actual works of reference for the Seljuq dynasty and Iranian (and partly Syrian and Caucasian) societies in the eleventh and twelfth centuries and constitute a new point of departure for the ongoing re-evaluation of this crucial period in the history of the Middle East. This process has been going on for the last decade or so, and Andrew Peacock has been one of the driving forces...". That is indicative of WP:NACADEMIC criterion 1 and I think criteria 3 and 5 likely to be met by virtue of the factors which I discussed above. AllyD (talk) 19:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)]
- The books are mostly edited volumes, not books of his own scholarship, with the exception of a glossy art-museum book with four authors. Is that really the sort of contribution that passes WP:AUTHOR but I'd want to see more reviews or more-mainstream reviews to make a stronger case for that. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)]
- The books are mostly edited volumes, not books of his own scholarship, with the exception of a glossy art-museum book with four authors. Is that really the sort of contribution that passes
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. With the additional books now listed and the reviews I found for them, our article now lists three single-author books, one multi-author book, and four edited volumes, with a total of 16 published reviews. That's enough for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)]
- Keep: meets WP:AUTHOR with substantive reviews of the subject's works. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)]
- Keep, meets Seljuq dynasty. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)]
- Keep - Meets ]
- Keep. As noted by other the subject seems to meet notability guidelines. Dunarc (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2018 (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.