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 delete. There was a suggestion to redirect to Rebel Alliances. Normally, I'd be looking for any excuse to go with the redirect per WP:ATD, but it didn't gain any traction at all in the disucssion, and in fact there are some arguments against the redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, there's no consensus on whether to redirect or not, so no prohibition against somebody else doing so. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Franks[edit]

Benjamin Franks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be a notable academic, as searches specifically about him resulted mostly in false positives and hits for his book, which might be notable considering it has apparently been cited at least 60 times. But as for Franks himself, he does not appear to meet our notability guidelines. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. GS h-index of 8 does not meet WP:Prof: WP:Too soon. WP:GNG is not met either. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I just need time to build the article, Ben Franks is referenced in many articles, papers and book chapters( Caledonian 365) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caledonian365 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. An early-career academic who has turned his Ph.D. thesis (Rebel Alliances) into an actual book. Ho hum. Too soon for academic notability, and while there are the expected academic-journal reviews of the book (doi: 10.1057/cpt.2008.3, doi:10.1111/wusa.12009) I don't think they're enough in the absence of anything else. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Rebel Alliances now that it has been spun off as a separate article which appears to pass WP:GNG. Franks has no notability for himself, independent of the book, so WP:BIO1E applies, but redirects are cheap. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Regardless of whether or not he meets any of the criteria at WP:ACADEMIC, Franks is, as demonstrated by David Eppstein, the sole author of a book which meets the general notability guideline. It would surely be foolish to claim that his book is notable but that he is not. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't imply that other editors are foolish. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't, and, even if I had, that comment would not be a helpful one. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have added some references to anarchist magazines which reviewed his monograph, indicating that his work is being read outside of academic circles. I have also added a reference to an article by someone else about his conception of "practical anarchism". It's abundantly clear to me, based on these sources and others added earlier, that Franks meets the general notability guideline, which should be sufficient. It is explicitly mentioned at WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC that a failure to meet a specific guideline (e.g., WP:ACADEMIC) does not preclude a subject being notable if the meet some other guideline (e.g., WP:GNG). Josh Milburn (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The subject neither meets the GNG nor PROF; that's the bottom line. Since notability is not -- and never has been -- inherited, that a work of the author's might meet the GNG certainly doesn't mean he does. If anyone's dissatisfied with this longstanding rule, I recommend raising the issue on the WP:N talk page. Ravenswing 18:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Numerous articles about Franks's work are cited in the article. It is not clear to me at this stage what everyone is actually looking for, here. Tabloid stories about his personal life? What establishes an academic's notability if not articles about his work? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I, for one, don't care about his personal life, but I want to see a body of work that has made a significant impact, either in academia or the broader world. In this case, the impact appears limited to academia (witness the academic journal book reviews rather than reviews in newspapers, for instance), and that's ok, but the problem is that by the standards we have established for academic impact (WP:PROF) it does not yet appear to be significant. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I note that the article currently cites two "popular" reviews of his book, as well as two academic ones. I don't have any particular views about whether or not Franks meets the guidelines set out at WP:ACADEMIC (I'm happy to take your word for it that he doesn't) but, based on the multiple articles about his work (two academic book reviews, two popular book reviews, and one peer reviewed article, among others, are currently cited), he surely meets the GNG, provided we are not introducing an ad hoc "Benjamin Franks" versus "Benjamin Franks's work" distinction. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. http://www.anarchist-developments.org/index.php/adcs_journal/article/view/11/11 may be worth careful criticism as a notability-supporting source, but I am skeptical. An article on a recent postgraduate by a continuing postgraduate student? Is this journal a reliable source, does it have an impact factor, I'm not finding answers. The lack of incoming links causes me to lean delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Rebel Alliances. I found enough reliable reviews to start an article on his dissertation book. Most remarks on his scholarship are in reference to the book, so his name would make an appropriate redirection term. (Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap.) Now good luck summarizing its contents. czar 08:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I the only person who thinks that this result is bizarre? Imagine explaining it to Franks; "Wikipedia has determined that you're a nobody, but the book you wrote a decade ago- that's important." Josh Milburn (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be clear; I am opposed to a redirect. Deleting the article would be a better result. Franks's career and work does not begin and end at that book. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, notability is not inherited. If there is coverage of a single book and not coverage of an academic career, we redirect the author to the book. Also if your takeaway from your time at AfD is that deleted biographies are "nobodies" then you haven't been paying attention. Is there enough sourcing to the subject matter justice? Apart from the book reviews, all we have is the Swann article, so I don't see a basis for an article about the individual. It is clear, however, that his career is best known for this book. czar 22:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep According to the sources and Milburn's comments, he meets significant impact criterion (especially this). --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 09:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy guideline do you claim is met? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

WP:ACADEMIC (criterion 1).--Ali Pirhayati (talk) 06:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no pass of any of the categories of WP:Academic. Another editor admits this and has obsessively been claiming that Author or GNG passes. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Just to let everyone know that we're now at five scholarly reviews of his book, one scholarly review of one of his collections, two popular reviews of his book, and a peer reviewed article about his approach. Of course, you could ignore these and vote delete anyway; your call. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am no longer watching this page. If you wish to talk to me in particular, please comment on my talk page. This has been an eye-opening discussion. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, that math is off. I count six workable book reviews and one review article (Swann). Everything else is either a duplicate or unreliable. If you're looking at the Cojocaru article, remember that is in a volume edited by Franks, and is not independent of the subject. czar 22:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is not enough to make a book notable, unless the reviews were in the New York Times or journals of similar prestige. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Not sure if that was a typo, but six reviews from reliable sources has always been enough to write a detailed article on a book. The book's notability is off-topic here, so move further discussion to another venue. czar 22:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I just removed 2 of those reviews, one was a review of a book by some one else, the other was not at the link given.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It has been consistently held that a single mildly notable book does not imply the author is notable. Nor is WP:PROF met in any other fashion. This is a clear case to TOOSOON. DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It doesn't meet WP:PROF, and the reason for that is WP:TOOSOON. Sometimes a single book can provide its author(s) substantial notability. This may be one of those cases, but it's definitely too soon to tell.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 22:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not seeing evidence that Franks is a notable scholar or author.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Searches did not turn up anything to show this person meets WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC. As been said, notability is not inherited. A book may be notable, but it's author may not be. Same with a song and a singer, a director and a film, etc. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:03, 30 December 2016 (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.