Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Dahms

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 no consensus.  Sandstein  20:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Dahms

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log

)

The article has been tagged for notability since June of 2007. I tried to find sources to establish notability but was unable to do so. For the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria, there are a few areas he almost, but doesn't quite meet, in my opinion. For #1/#4: He has an extensive bibliography, but I cannot find third-party sources stating that they or he has made an extensive impact on his area of research. For #8, he is an editor at a journal, but I don't see anywhere stating he is editor-in-chief of it, or has been of others in the past. These reasons lead me to say the article should be deleted for notability reasons. raven1977 (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Guess we had an edit conflict, I'm not sure what happened there, TenPoundHammer!raven1977 (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finishing unfinished nom by User:Raven1977 Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--I have to agree. The bibliography is good enough for tenure, but does not establish notability per WP. Besides, the article is way too fluffy, and there is an obvious COI, as evidenced by this edit, subject's photograph uploaded by article's author. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/weakKeep Publishing multiple books and journal articles in subject at reputable presses is what makes a person an authority. Being appointed to a senior position at a major university is what demonstrates that one's peers have thought the work actually notable. Being editor inchief a journal further demonstrates it--such positions go only to those of established authority & notability in their profession. WP doesn't evaluate them for tenure--it recognizes that the experts do and we record it. The only questions I have is that I do not know the significance of the particular journals and publishers in this subject. (and it is Associate Professor, not Professor, and that is not always regarded as senior enough. (fwiw, one journal home p. [1] lists him as one of the two co-editors, which counts as sufficient. One of 20 co-=ed would not be, nor would co ed be if someone else were ed. in c.. Published by emerald, medium-reputation publisher ) DGG (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete I'm unfamiliar with standards in sociology, but on the general academic spectrum, an associate professor falls into the category of "average professor," failing the rough criterion of "more notable than the average professor." RayAYang (talk) 22:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't yet meet WP:PROF or the general notability guidelines. RMHED (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 00:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep In agreement with
  WP:ACADEMIC. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete does not meet WP:PROF or gen notability. JBsupreme (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep' The journal (co) editorship is what decides this for me.John Z (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets academic/professor notability criterion #1 (significant impact in their scholarly discipline). This is indicated by his editorship of the Current Perspectives in Social Theory book series (not a journal); published by Elsevier, and carried full-text by ScienceDirect. Suggest adding citation and link in article to a site describing the book series. Eric Yurken (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2008 (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.