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 speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn with no delete votes. (non-admin closure) WikiVirusC^(talk) 12:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Hayward[edit]

Joel Hayward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet any of the criteria for notable academics Groupthink (talk) 08:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC) EDIT: After discussion (see below) I have changed my mind based on Hayward's Royal Historical Society Fellowship.[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Poetry, Military, Islam, United Kingdom, and New Zealand. — Karnataka ^talk 08:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He doesn't have to meet these criteria, plural. He merely has to meet any one of the eight (or, of course, WP:GNG). The seventh criterion is "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." The article demonstrates that he meets this. -- Hoary (talk) 08:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree, can you expound please? Groupthink (talk) 08:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't be bothered, Groupthink, to spend more time in order to satisfy the curiosity of one person in an AfD such as this. However, if two other editors in good standing also make the same request, then ping me to let me know, and I'll then "expound". -- Hoary (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry you couldn't be bothered to support your arguments. I'm glad others in this discussion were so bothered so I could in turn be bothered to reply to and engage with them. Groupthink (talk) 11:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Groupthink, I couldn't justify spending more time on the questions of somebody who didn't appear to have digested the article's 3rd AfD process. Anyway, you have already withdrawn this 4th nomination. -- Hoary (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  ...and yet others did feel justified. Hmm. Groupthink (talk) 11:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: He is certainly notable, as per the very criteria you mention:

——“The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.” His book on the Stalingrad airlift alone would quality him in this regard, having become something of a standard work. His book on the Leadership of Muhammad won the Best International Non-Fiction Book Award at the 2021 Sharjah International Book Awards. —— “The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).” He is a Felllow of the Royal Society of Arts and the Royal Historical Society. —— “The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.” He has been Dean of the Royal Air Force College, and Head of the Department of Humanities at Khalifa University, to name a few of his chair-level positions. —— “The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.” The 2023 edition of the Muslim 500 named him one of the world’s 500 most influential Muslim scholars for his scholarship on early Islamic History. Addressing this ranking, The National newspaper called Hayward "eminent" and a "distinguished historian of warfare and military strategy".^[1] BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stalingrad airlift: "The book is 'an advanced and exhaustive work that will become a standard in the field once it is better known.'" per cite -- this is speculation, not foundation. Leadership of Muhammed: The "Sharjah International Book Awards" is not a notable literary prize. Fellowships: Not supported by reliable sources. Chairs: Not at a major institution of higher education and research. Muslim 500 and The National: Not reliable, neutral sources. Groupthink (talk) 09:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fellowship of Royal Historical Society here[1]. Heading off some possible rebuttals:

• primary sourcing may be used to prove fellowship, per WP:NPROF
• notability is not based on the state of sourcing in the article

Oblivy (talk) 09:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Historical Society is indeed a "a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor," which means the subject of the article meets criteria 3 and the article squeaks by on notability requirements. I will withdraw my AfD request accordingly. I doubt that after good editing anything will be left of this article but a stub which reads "Joel Hayward is a Fellow of the RHS", but that's immaterial. Groupthink (talk) 10:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep echoing what BoyTheKingCanDance said, the two senior academic positions, chair of humanities at Khalifa University and deanship of the RAF College Cranwell, should satisfy WP:NPROF #5 and #6.Oblivy (talk) 09:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: While WP:Consensus can change, you need a good-as-heck rationale if you are nominating an article which has been kept at three separate AfDs for valid reasons, and this rationale is clearly not that. Besides the fact that he very likely passes the rationale the nominator cites (WP:NPROF) as a fellow of the Royal Historical Society and as a professor in the Commonwealth sense (though correct me if I'm wrong), he also very clearly passes the WP:SNG that actually applies to him: WP:NAUTHOR. Simply looking through the articles of the ten books listed in the infobox, several have listed significant academic reviews. Additionally, there's a good chance he meets WP:GNG on its face, through articles like [2]. Per The Drover's Wife and Peterkingiron in the last AfD, the article still needs a solid trim, but I would say the subject is nonetheless notable. Curbon7 (talk) 09:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "Having published work does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are. Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study. This notability guideline specifies criteria for judging the notability of an academic through reliable sources for the impact of their work."

"The National is a private English-language daily newspaper published in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. The newspaper is owned by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the deputy prime minister of the United Arab Emirates and member of the royal family of Abu Dhabi.[2][3]" Hardly a reliable or noteworthy source.

I actually attempted a "solid trim" on this article and wound up trimming pretty much everything after removal of unsourced, poorly sourced and non-notable material. So to save time I AfD'd.

"...asserting that an article merely needs improvement to withstand a deletion nomination is not a persuasive argument to retain it. Perhaps improvement in the form of adding multiple references to reliable, independent, non-trivial discussion of the subject would indeed demonstrate its notability, but asserting that an article 'needs improvement, not deletion' is not the same as providing evidence of such a possibility." (From Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)

Groupthink (talk) 09:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your first point, that's not what I said. I was talking about the academic reviews of his books. If a book has been significantly reviewed in several (generally at least three) reputable academic journals or other prominent publications (like The New York Times Book Review), that is usually a sign that the book is notable. If multiple different books have received this treatment, that is usually a sign that the author is notable. Regarding The National: just because someone powerful owns a news outlet doesn't inherently makes it unreliable (I mean, Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post), but as I haven't looked into this case, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here; let's set that to the side and have that conversation at WP:RSN another day. I tried giving the article a bit of a copyedit; I do agree that it is in much rougher shape than it first appears (there is so much self-referencing), to the point it may warrant a WP:TNT as the prose is bordering on unworkable, but I stand by it on notability. Curbon7 (talk) 10:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per all above. Appears to be clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 1 August 2023 (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.