Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Dobson

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. Per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Dobson[edit]

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

Text haphazardly removed from the article by AndrewDobson100 before it was prodded with the rationale that "subject of the page wants it deleted". AndrewDobson100 has no edits to any other page at WP, and I'm tempted to AGF that this is Professor Dobson himself. Bringing here for further attention. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Given the terrible sourcing and the lack of substantive edits I see no obvious reason against letting this article fall by the wayside. On a minor point note also the edits by Profandrewdobson earlier on. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article definitely needs improvement, Dobson is the (full) Professor of Politics at a relatively significant British university and a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences. Full professors holding established chairs at significant British universities are generally notable (note that very few chairs in Europe are named). -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The term "full professor" means less than it used to, and the University of Keele is only a mid-rank British university, so I'm not convinced by this argument. Whether he's a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences seems unclear, as discussed below. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clicking Find Sources above leaves me considerably underwhelmed. JSTOR is mostly class curriculum lists and a few passing-mentions. The newspaper hits are pieces quote-farming their agendas, with none of them being about the subject himself. Basically we have a prof doing the usual routine things who briefly dabbled in a failed candidacy in a historically inconsequential party which has never won more than 1.04% of the vote in any of its ten outings. Basically, he's falling short of WP:ACADEMIC (see 2nd paragraph of the "nutshell", and I wouldn't consider him overly influential even within his own field as his leaning is to long-established prevailing norms), WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG overall. Pax 10:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article claims that he became an academician of the Academy of Social Sciences in 2008. AcSS changed their individual membership title from academician to fellow in 2014 [1], but he is not currently listed by the academy as one of their fellows [2]. If he were, he would probably pass WP:PROF#C3 but this anomaly worries me. Does anyone know whether he really was an academician but for some reason stopped being one, or whether this claim should be removed? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- He wouldn't be the first AcSS fellow (accidentally?) not listed there. When I researched for the article on the geographer Ron Johnston, I remember not finding him in their database even though he claimed to be a founding member on his faculty website. Apparently, his name has been added since then. Philip Cooke would be another example of someone not in the database claiming membership. In neither case, I can say wether there had actually been a discontinuation of membership or not, though. On a side note, I think Dobson's citation numbers alone would make him notable. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments. I am indeed the subject of this page and as I am about to retire I would like the page to close. I used to be an Academician, by the way, but am no longer. AndrewDobson100 (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewDobson100 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: If the person it's written about wants it deleted, we should honour that wish IMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's appropriate to say thank you for a comment, but thank you anyway Joseph2302. I hope that the eventual consensus is to delete the article. Thank you all for the discussion. AndrewDobson100 (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The argument that we should honour the subject's wish that the article be deleted would be completely bogus if the subject was clearly notable, but since the notability case here is marginal at best and the sourcing is poor to non-existent deletion is the obvious way to go. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't intend to object your overall conclusion, Green Political Thought has received over 1000 citations per gscholar, has been published in four editions and been translated into Spanish. And there are two additional solo-authored monographes cited more than 500 times each, and some other well-cited publications. He isn't marginally notable, he is notable per WP:ACADEMIC criteria #1. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2015 (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.