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, per the improvements to the article during the AFD which have established his notability. Davewild (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James V. Downton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The subject is a non-notable professor who does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics). All we know about him is that he wrote four books and used to teach at a university. His works are cited by others, [1] but he's not "widely cited"[2] and is not known for any innovative scholarship. Without a source like a biography, a profile, an interview, or even a faculty page it's difficult to see how this could develop into more than a short bibliography. We have an article on one of this books, Sacred Journeys (book), so the title can be redirected there if desired. Delete. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, a college professor with little assertion to broader notability. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, or keep and merge to Sacred Journeys (book) - See article about one of his books Sacred Journeys (book), a book that is widely cited in the domain of new religious movements (see [3] . If there is not enough bibliographic material for a full article, that is not an issue -- it can remain a stub until someone does expand it. Please note that AfD's are not for redirects or merges, but for deletion. I would not oppose a merge to Sacred Journeys (book), but oppose deletion per arguments presented. Also note that the nominator seems no to have properly read the notability criteria for academics: Criteria 3 states (my highlights(: The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course; if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works; or if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
• Delete, Oppose merge. -- Agree with Will Beback (talk · contribs) and KleenupKrew (talk · contribs), there is some brief info in other sources "Downton, author of this book, says in the book that..." - But I was unable in searches of multiple database archives to find any significant biographical discussion of the individual as a person in secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources. A search in InfoTrac came up with a whopping zero hits, searches in 2 other databases also came up with zero hits, or simply brief mentions "author of.." again. If there are any independent secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources out there which significantly discuss and go into detail on the biographical info of this individual, I was not able to find any. Also oppose a redirect/merge, as anyone searching for the title of the redirect will not be searching for the name of this individual, but rather for information on the redirect article itself - and if the individual is deemed not notable enough to have his own article, there is no point so keeping it, could always recreate later at some point if enough sources are found with enough biographical info to warrant, establish, and verify notability. Also, agree with Will Beback that Wikipedia:Notability (academics) is not established, none of his works are themselves the basis for a textbook or course, one of his works is cited enough for its own notability, but not widely cited, as per WP:PROF, "relative to other publications in the same field which are generally acknowledged to be important." The collective body of work is not significant or well-known, and so far as I can tell the individual has not received a notable award or honor. Cirt (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What dos InfoTrac has to do with this? His book is widely cited, and as such fits within the notability criteria:

Here is just but a few of the citations for his works. Yes, sure, it is a narrow discipline (religious coversion)(, but nonetheless Downton is wideliy cited:

• Deconversion from religious movements: An analysis of charismatic bonding and spiritual commitment J Jacobs - Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
• Religious Conversion and the Concept of Socialization: Integrating the Brainwashing and Drift Models TE Long, JK Hadden - Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
• Conversion: Toward a holistic model of religious change, LR Rambo - Pastoral Psychology
• Contacts, Cognitions, and Conversion: a Rational Choice Approach, CD GARTRELL - Review of Religious Research
• Slogan Chanters to Mantra Chanters: A Mertonian Deviance Analysis of Conversion to Religiously Ideological Organizations in the Early170s Stephen A. Kent, Sociological Analysis, Vol. 49, No. 2 (Summer, 1988), pp. 104-118
• Religious conversion of adolescents: Testing the Lofland and Stark model of religious conversion W Kox, W Meeus, H Hart - Sociological Analysis
• The Spiritual Self-In-Relation: Empathy and the Construction of Spirituality Among Modern Descendants of theSpanish Crypto-Jews JL Jacobs - Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,
• Deprogramming, Brainwashing and the Medicalization of Deviant Religious Groups T Robbins, D Anthony
• Religious youth cults: Alternative healing social networks, EM Pattison - Journal of Religion and Health
• How People Recognize Charisma: The Case of Darshan in Radhasoami and Divine Light Mission, L. Dupertuis, Sociological analysis
• Characters in Search of a Script: The Exit Narratives of Formerly Ultra-Orthodox Jews, L DAVIDMAN, AL GREIL - Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
• Religious participation, religious motivation, and individual psychosocial competence KI Pargament, RE Steele, FB Tyler - Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
• Constructing "cultist" mind control , T Robbins - Sociological Analysis
• Devotion, Damages and Deprogrammers: Strategies and Counterstrategies in the Cult Wars BA Fisher - JL & Religion
• Social change, gender roles, and new religious movements A Aidala - Sociological Analysis, 1985
• God Comes to America: Father Divine and the Peace Mission Movement B Campbell - Sociological Analysis, 1979
• Public Reaction against New Religious Movements, DG Bromley, A Shupe
• Pathways To Druidry: A Case Study of Ár nDraíocht Féin, Michael T. COOPER, Ph.D. (Trinity International University, Deerfield Illinois, USA)
• Meditative Ritual Practice and Spiritual Conversion-Commitment: Theoretical Implications Based on the Case of Zen, David L. Preston, Sociological Analysis, Vol. 43, No. 3
• Understanding Religious Conversion, Lewis Ray Rambo
• Versions of Deconversion: Autobiography and the Loss of Faith, John D. Barbour
• Baring Our Souls: TV Talk Shows and the Religion of Recovery, Kathleen S. Lowney
• Pluralism Comes of Age: American Religious Culture in the Twentieth Century, Charles H. Lippy
• The 60's Communes: Hippies and Beyond, Timothy Miller
• Encyclopedia of the American Religious Experience, Charles H. Lippy, Peter W. Williams
• Religion in Sociological Perspective, Bryan R. Wilson
• The active vs. passive convert: Paradigm conflict in conversion/recruitment research, JT Richardson - Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1985
• ''Rebel Leadership: Commitment and Charisma in the Revolutionary Process M Jaworskyj - The Journal of Politics, 1975

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mentions as related to the one book does not satisfy WP:PROF. My position is laid out above, and still stands as "Delete". Cirt (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a dozen citations counts as being "widely cited". Even if it were twice that many we still have the problem that there is no biographical information available about this person. The article is just a (short) bibliography. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a narrow field of study, and there are more than a dozen citations, that was just a sample. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree w/ Will Beback (talk · contribs). I've explained my rationale, above, and other users can read that. I'd rather not get into a back-and-forth and back-and-forth and back-and-forth, those aren't usually pleasant in AfDs, especially when it (already) seems like we are going in circles. I'll let someone else have the last word, if they want to. Cirt (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-Notable per Wikipedia:Notability (academics).--RyRy5 (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have to agree that this does not satisfy the criteria laid out by WP:PROF. David D. (Talk) 21:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits are a massive improvement. David D. (Talk) 19:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seems like the author has an ulterior motive for wanting this article. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The author? Ulterior motive? Is he editing Wikipedia? Don't think so ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What motive? Chimeric Glider (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No merge per Non-notable. Baegis (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (changed 27/4/08) The biographical information now provided, and the additional publications cited, IMO, now tips the balance to keep. --John Brauns (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cites provided above are not Wikipedia citations, but peer-reviewed journals and sociology books. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to me that for such a narrow field of study he has a fairly large number of scholars citing him. I agree more biographical information would make it a more pertinent article, but it can be kept while this info shows up. Or doesn't. There must be thousands of less notable subjects for Wikipedia articles than this one. Rumiton (talk) 10:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He passes the "The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources" test.Momento (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to whom is the subject a significant expert? If he's so notable how come we can't even find out the most basic biographical information? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • See the partial list of citations above. Just for that reason, his work is notable and complies with WP:PROF , criteria (3). I fail to understand how these are dismissed so quickly in this debate. This is a very narrow area of research, See Category:Religious conversion ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Citing someone does not, by itself, make them a recognized expert. If this subject were notable then biographical information would be available. None is. The guy doesn't even have a faculty webpage. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Citing someone does not, by itself, make them a recognized expert -- yes, that is exactly what having your work cited by all main scholars in the field does. A faculty webpage, on the other hand, is not a demonstration of notability. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • See also Transformational_leadership, another area this scholar has engaged in, and in which he is mentioned. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I didn't mean that a faculty webpage connotes notability. I mean that we have zero biographical information on this subject. This is not a biography, it's a bibliography. Being cited as an expert makes one an expert. Being cited for conducting a study on a particular group does not make one an expert. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • • See online bio [4]
            • Being cited for conducting a study on a particular group does not make one an expert., Yes, it does. That is the measure of notability in academia, how much or how little your work is cited. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Despite exhaustively listing every citation that can be found, there still aren;t enough to show that this scholar is "widely cited". In the academic world, being cited a few dozen times isn't unusual. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-Notable. The problem is not that Downton was active in a ‘narrow field’, most academics are; the problem is that Downton made only a very limited range of reference within his ‘narrow field’. Further while he may be cited by a number of other authors, the cites are all for the same material, which is itself highly specific to a limited chronological and cultural range, and none of which provided a ‘rosetta stone’ of greater relevance. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Momento. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note For some reason editors who are participating in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myron Sharaf are also participating here. Since the subjects appear unrelated it seems like it's due to the involvement of one or more editors. I hope that each article is judged on its own merits. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• they are probably just cruising AfD. Doesn't look like anything sinister. Protonk (talk) 07:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Looking at the g-books and g-scholar hits, I think there are sufficient citations to make him notable. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin: The article has been expanded considerably since the AfD was placed as new editors have found addition biographical information and published bibliography. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have just expanded the article. It wasn't really that hard to find the information online. You just have to use a variety of search terms. For one thing, he's also known as Jim Downton. In any case, he was the first to introduce the term transformational leadership and is widely acknowledged as such. See the Google Scholar results for "Downton" + "transformational leadership" and observe these results from Google Books. His 1973 book Rebel Leadership: Commitment and Charisma in the Revolutionary Process alone has 108 citations in Google Scholar, and note that Google Scholar does not pick up all of them. Also, I think you're all focusing too much on Downton's work on religious cults. His work on leadership is equally, if not more important. I came to this AfD because I was monitoring the contributions of the Award Center Project (people offering barnstars to each other for various 'challenges'). I found this 'challenge' rather alarming, as well as this one. By the way, at least one of the 'delete' votes here is from a 13 year old, who has been on Wikipedia for all of two months and shown no interest whatsoever in articles about sociology or any academic related topics. Voceditenore (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per recent expansion/bio information additions by Voceditenore (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Was borderline at the start, but a full keep with the article expansion.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While the original article was a short bibliography with no sources or assertions of notability, it is now a good biography. Thanks to Voceditenore for finding and adding evidence of the subject's notability. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:28, 28 April 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.