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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Devery S. Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

The article is so poorly-sourced that the only "reference" is to a webpage that simply lists him as the winner of $1,000. He's simply not notable. UnitAnode 04:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of shown notability, substantial information, and interest; but not because of the amount of the prize money -- the prize is related to his alleged notability. With better sources an article on him is possible. Borock (talk) 04:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I only mentioned the amount as a matter of fact, not as a reason for deletion. That's all that's listed at the one bare ref, which is troubling. UnitAnode 04:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I too harbor some worries about the notability of the subject. However, I declined the prod —as the stated reason (unreferenced BLP) was no longer correct, and I feel having eyes more knowledgeable about notability in history and other disciplines examine the situation would be helpful. Ray^Talk 16:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Appears to be zero GS cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. I did some research and added material back into the article, all of it sourced, so maybe it should be reassessed. I'm familiar with Mormon studies and I think he's notable in that field. He could also be making his name with his Emmett Till research, but it would help if he ever published his book. He has edited two important award-winning documentary history books and has published in four academic journals. I think he'll grow in influence and people will want to look him up here when they read his work. I have to confess that I don't know what "GS cites" are (it sure isn't WP:GS). ——Rich jj (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, I get what GS is (WP:GSNR was my clue), but what is a GS cite? ——Rich jj (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar cites of which there appear to be 1. Around 500 are usually required for WP:Prof #1. Look at the top of the page. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Xantipppe, there is no such guideline for GS cites. The number has to be evaluated in terms of what constitutes notability in the particular subject involved--because academic notability is as an authority in a particular special field, and the citation density varies very widely. This is one of the lower ones--its one of the narrower fields of history. even so, evaluation is based also on the importance of the publications venues, and of the citing ones, and the distribution of counts for the various works: 10 good papers is worth more than 20 mediocre ones. Purely numerical evaluation of citations is a device of lazy academic administrators. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any person will be hard pressed to pass WP:Prof #1 on the basis of one cite. Signed: Lazy academic administrator.

Indeed so. Neither is the level 500. Where the level does lie is a matter of judgment, based on the nature of the subject and the nature of the citations. DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Rich jj's work - well done! --GRuban (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, plenty of coverage in published sources. Everyking (talk) 08:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where? Examples would be nice. Rich jj seems to be focusing more on his own view that Anderson is notable, than on any actual sources. If no examples of "plenty of coverage in published sources" are produced, then I would encourage the closing administrator to ignore any such keep recommendations until such are provided. PROF#1 is pretty clear. UnitAnode 05:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • But...there's a whole pile of sources sitting right there in the article. That's what I was referring to. Everyking (talk) 05:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unitanode, you'll recall your deletion argument was that the article only had one reference. There are now 20 references, every sentence has multiple citations, all to published sources. Rich did an excellent job, surely that meets Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard, your requirement as phrased in the nomination? As for notability, Anderson has won multiple awards for his work: also referenced. That meets our requirements. Don't take it personally that an article has been improved, surely we're all here to improve the encyclopedia, not to "win", right? --GRuban (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - having gone through the article, there seems to be only one reference which provides significant coverage in an independent reliable source - this article [1]. All the rest are either written by Anderson himself, or provide trivial coverage. If that's all there is, I have to conclude he's not notable enough for a Wikipedia biography at this time. Robofish (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried rewriting the article with no sources from Anderson (see User:Rich jj/Sandbox/Devery S. Anderson). This reduced biographical content, not his claim to notability. WP:BIO#Academics says some may be "notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." He remains an award-winning published historian of Mormonism and Emmett Till. However, this is mostly gathered from mentions in journals, websites, and books. Not being a wiki-lawyer myself, I don't know whether that makes them trivial or unusable sources.

His notability mostly rests upon (1) his two published books, which have both won awards from two historical societies; (2) his longtime work with Sunstone and numerous symposium speeches; (3) his early-1990s Mormon study group that ran afoul of ecclesiastical leaders, to be reported on by Mormon intellectual Lavina Fielding Anderson. I can accept if this is not adequate to establish notability. ——Rich jj (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if his work is notable, that could become the subject of an article. What do you think? UnitAnode 23:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose his work could have its own article, since its reviews might be non-trivial 3rd party coverage. Would this be to transform the biographical article into something like "Works of Devery S. Anderson"? Anderson could be less notable than his work, though he has had limited coverage in third party publications for his Mormon studies group, Emmett Till involvment, and Sunstone symposium work. ——Rich jj (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what people are notable for is their work. Writers for what they write, as athletes for what they perform. It is not the personal life of someone that makes them notable, but what the do with it. DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Robofish. I'm not convinced that this person has been the subject of non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Claims of influence are not supported by citations. Minor awards are excluded by WP:AUTHOR. Abductive (reasoning) 22:50, 30 January 2010 (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.