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. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Walsh[edit]

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

A biography of a professor. He's written or edited some books and has been quoted briefly in several news stories, but the article lists no other claims to notability. Half of the short bio is copied from his faculty profile page. Therefore the article does not appear to meet WP:PROFESSOR. Will Beback talk 06:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:BIO as there is significant coverage in multiple independent sources, namely two lengthy interviews for which he was the subject: [1], [2] and a review of one of his books [3] Qwfp (talk) 08:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Excellent cites on GS: 601, 188, 131, 151... with h index of 25. A clear pass of WP:Prof#C1. Also the news items contribute to general notability. Please will the nominator explain why he did not refer to these important citation data in his AfD nomination? Xxanthippe (talk) 08:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

There's no indication of any of that in the article. As written, it did not include indications of notability. Could you please add that material to the article? Will Beback talk 03:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:Before it is the job of the nominator to investigate sources and improve the article, if this can be done, before taking it to AfD. AfD is not meant to be a mechanism for improving BLPs. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I checked the subject's university bio and found nothing there to indicate notability. If you'd like to improve the article, then do so. If not, not. Will Beback talk 03:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, one of his books got a mixed academic review[4] but the reviewer seems to respect the person's knowledge. The article subject doesn't seem engaged in controversy or self-promotion that would tend to mess up the article's neutrality, my usual reasons for wanting to get rid of biographies. This article seems harmless. There may be other reviews of the person's books out there--I stopped looking after finding that one. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 07:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A review is a review is a review. Any sort contributes to notability. This AfD is not an academic promotions board. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Added: Hmm, he has a somewhat self-promoting personal site.[5] I see WP:AUTHOR has been tightened up somewhat so even with all those books I'm not sure if he qualifies now (WP:PROF is separate). But I tend to interpret notability for academic authors a bit more loosely than for general commercial authors, on the theory that we're here to disseminate knowledge. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keepThe World of Shamanism: New Views of an Ancient Tradition and A Sociable God: Toward a New Understanding of Religion are two well received books thus Meets WP:PROF. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:03, 11 April 2011 (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.