Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Murdoch

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. Black Kite 00:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Murdoch

Steve Murdoch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unfortunately, the notability of the subject has not been demonstrated. There are many historians and scholars out there and this article says nothing of how its subject stands apart from the countless mass of past or present "scholars." I would suggest that the author of this article do a bit more research on his topics before starting articles of dubious value. Torkmann (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I have placed a stub tag on the article. The article describes the subject as a "reader": this is a senior academic post in a UK university. The award of this status by his university ought to be sufficient to demonstate his notability. WE are not talking about a school teacher who writes a couple of books! The (open access) Royal Historical Society bibliography lists 37 works by him from 1996 to 2008: this should be ample tp prove notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A reading of the article
    WP:ACADEMIC criterion 5, to which I assume you were referring. Barring some specific evidence of the University of St Andrews being a contra-example, "reader" is generally a position below "Chair" or "Distinguished Professor". - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment - Richard, I note you are the creator of the article and as such could possibly have valuable insight. How do you say this article meets "all requirements for notability and verifiability"? - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only limited coverage. gnews, don't see evidence how it meets specific criteria of WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 02:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not accept Reader as necessarily notable, though I would accept Senior Reader in a major research university. But this p[articular Reader is notable, since he has written three academic books, and co-edited another. That many published books would make him notable either as an academic or as an author, especially since at least one of them has 4 reviews. . Scotland and the Thirty Years' War, 1618-1648 108 WirldCat locations, & WorldCat shows his book has been reviewed in The Sixteenth century journal. 35, no. 1, (2004): 199; Journal of Military History, 67, no. 1 (2003): 226-227, Scottish historical review. 83, no. 216, (2004): 244; Scottish Economic & social History,no. 22, Part 1 (2002): 88-89. Britain, Denmark-Norway and the House of Stuart, 1603-1660 : a diplomatic and military analysis, about 40 holdings. Network north : Scottish kin, commercial and covert associations in Northern Europe, 1603-1746 54 WorldCat locations. ; co editorship of another Scottish communities abroad in the early modern period. His principal publisher, Brill, is a major academic publisher for this sort of topic. Considering the specialized of the overall subject I would consider this certainly enough to show expert status is his subject. (And I have not checked comprehensively for US or European holdings, which is more difficult, nor for reviews of the other books.) In addition there is the joint work on Scotland, Scandinavia and Northern European Biographical Database [1] ; the copyright is in his name. BTW, G News archive is sometimes helpful in finding book reviews for US books, but otherwise is useless in dealing with WP:PROF, as contrasted with WP:BIO, for which it is invaluable. DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request for clarification - sorry, DGG, just to clarify the above, are you saying he's written one book "Scotland and the Thirty Years' War", with reviews in Journal of Military history, etc; or that he's written a selection of books and articles including "Journal of Military History", "Scottish Economic & Social History", etc? (The latter would pass the broad definition for
    WP:ACADEMIC or elsewhere but I stand to be corrected. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
He was written 3 books and co-edited another. Of these books, I have found multiple reviews for one of them--I have not looked comprehensively for find reviews for the other ones, partly because what I found already is I think sufficient in that direction. The four journals mentioned are journals that reviewed his book, not articles he has published. "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." is what I summarize as being an expert in his subject. The independent reliable sources are: 1/ the peer reviewers and editors who accepted and published the 4 books--academic books these days normally need 3 or 4 positive reviews to be accepted for publication. 2/The book reviewers writing in significant academic journals 3/the people who have cited the books--very difficult to find in this subject comprehensively, but the GScholar results are indicative. 4/the hundreds of librarians and faculty advisors in academic libraries who have selected the books for purchase--how libraries do this varies, but at least one person in each must have positively selected the book for each of them. (as a guide, at the most academically stringent universities , the basic criterion for permanent tenure is 2 books; at most universities it can be fewer. From the way the article was written, I carelessly assumed at first there was 1 book with 1 significant review only, in which case i would have said delete. Fortunately I actually looked at the sources before giving my first assumptions. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for the clarification. I've changed my opinion above accordingly to "weak keep" on the basis of your arguments. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep per Dust and DGG.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe we now have sufficient evidence of his academic notability, which was not present at the time Torkmann nominated.
    talk) 16:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment, Remember it is the topic that is, or, is not notable, not the state of the article at any given time. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response. But also remember that the article must at least demonstrate some prima facie evidence of notability. Many of your articles do not. No offense. Torkmann (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2009 (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/Steve_Murdoch&oldid=1074048509"