Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernest Morrell
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Cirt (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ernest Morrell[edit]
- Ernest Morrell (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)
Lacks notability. Probably written by his wife. username 1 (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Only marginal WP:Prof #1 as GS cites give h index around 10. Others may care to argue WP:Politician. Who wrote this recent article is irrelevant. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – I’m showing that his article in the Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy is cited 73 times. Likewise “Promoting Academic” in the English Journal is cited 53 times and they are just two of numerous references in Google Scholar, as provided here [1]. Wouldn’t this qualify the Doctor under Creative Professional? Happy New Year. JAAGTalk 01:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Just-An-Average-Guy (talk • contribs) 01:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not by the standards that prevail on these pages. Many hundreds of cites are usually required to show notability above that of the average professor. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- I’m showing his works cited in excess of 400 times, with the link I provided above. In adition, he is credited as part of “.. An incredible team of IDEA scholars—including Susan Auer- bach, Tony Collat0s, Makeba Jones, Martin Lipton, Ernest Morrell, Irene Serna, Marisa Saunders, and Susan Yonezawa—invested both their minds and hearts in this work” which is cited 2,220 times as shown here [2]. Does this help? Thanks for help. JAAGTalk 02:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. 400 cites makes him marginal by the usual standards of WP:Prof #1. The 2,220 cites refer to somebody else's book. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- I’m showing his works cited in excess of 400 times, with the link I provided above. In adition, he is credited as part of “.. An incredible team of IDEA scholars—including Susan Auer- bach, Tony Collat0s, Makeba Jones, Martin Lipton, Ernest Morrell, Irene Serna, Marisa Saunders, and Susan Yonezawa—invested both their minds and hearts in this work” which is cited 2,220 times as shown here [2]. Does this help? Thanks for help. JAAGTalk 02:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not by the standards that prevail on these pages. Many hundreds of cites are usually required to show notability above that of the average professor. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep. I added some references and reviews of his books. His work has also been mentioned in fairly large daily newspapers. I think he passes WP:GNG - Eastmain (talk) 02:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as it's well referenced, which usually means it meets the notability standards. The personal section in the article needs to be merged elsewhere. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 03:13, 2 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.