Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Andrews

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. -

Mailer Diablo 06:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Eric Andrews

(Contested PROD). Fails every criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). The short list of publications does not assert importance in relation to our criteria about academics (#3,4,5 ?): i.e. significance, or advancing an "important new concept". Criteria #1,2, 6, 7 not mentioned/asserted at all. No references to verifiable sources: notably no "independent sources" regarding him as a "significant expert in their area." The JPStalk to me 02:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: This article was in much poorer state than it is now at the time it was nominated. [1]. The JPStalk to me 10:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the pre-AfD state it was clearly a poor article. Luckily we now have the best result - an AfD discussion resulting in a better article - Peripitus (Talk) 10:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — per nom American Patriot 1776 02:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — His most recent book, the ANZAC Illusion advances new theories about the popular view of Australian's experiences in war. It is a controversial position for an academic to take and it adds significantly to the reinterpretation of Australian war and social history. It was published by a major publisher Cambridge University Press. I can't comment on his other books because I don't know them. Certainly the article is weak, but it is simply a stub and over time it will be improved. I think it would be a shame to consider that Eric Andrew's material is not notable when we accept every footballer and sportsperson as notable just because they have played in a few first grade matches. In one hundred year's Andrews contribution to Australian history will remain more important than John Markovski's contribution to Australia. Further, I think it meets the requirement of WP:Bio, even if it fails the academic notability test. Maustrauser 03:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: per
    WP:V
    , no references -> no loss. I say "weak" only because this is an old article, and I'd feel better if it had had a cleanup tag before being considered for deletion.
    • Keep per rewriting: the external link that mentions a paper writen on the man most convinces me. Melchoir 04:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. He has had a number of books published by reputable publishers. Seems notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 05:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 06:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of his books has been quoted at least twice in the Australian House of Representatives. Another was translated into Chinese. Another academic (Wayne Reynolds of the University of Newcastle) considered Andrews significant enough to present a paper about him, "A Scholar of Australian War and Diplomacy: The Views and Methods of Eric Andrews" at the Newcastle War Society and Culture Symposium, November 2, 2001. This article should not have been nominated for deletion. TruthbringerToronto

(Talk | contribs) 08:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: Regarding "This article should not have been nominated for deletion," I have now noted above the weak state this article was in at the time it was nominated for deletion. The JPStalk to me 10:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - perhaps as an academic he does not make the grade but the evidence in the article ( and some web searching ) shows him making it as an author. Multiple works with at least some reviews. A stub article to expand not delete Peripitus (Talk) 08:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the version I read had a fairly extensive bibliography of serious books he's published. Some of his works have been translated into Chinese, apparently. Seems noteworthy to me. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten per Maustrauser and Capitalistroadster. Looks like an open-and-shut case to me now. RFerreira 19:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eric_Andrews&oldid=1088889858"