Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim G. Shaffer (2nd nomination)

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. Consensus indicates the subject is notable, but definitely some work to be done here. (non-admin closure) Red Phoenix ^talk 04:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jim G. Shaffer[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC and/or WP:GNG. ∯WBG^converse 15:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 15:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 15:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 15:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 15:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 15:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 15:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Given the sources we rely on it can be difficult to assess the impact of academics whose major work was published in the 1980s and 1990s. Shaffer contributed to the anthropology of the Indus Valley Civilization and is a critic of the Indo-Aryan migration theory. Shaffer's three most cited works are a 1992 article with 108 citations, a book chapter from 1984 with 104 citations, and a book chapter from 1982 with 71 citations, with the 1980s chapters' citations probably underestimated. Google scholar has yet to include the citations found in many book chapters from this era. In any case this is enough to show the impact of his work. The 1980s chapters are cited well into the 2000s. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The top 5 citation counts are:- 155, 147, 108, 104, 80 and 71.

Google scholar has yet to include the citations found in many book chapters from this era is not true for his domain. And, I need to evaluate a bit more about the average citation-metrics in/around these domains. ∯WBG^converse 07:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the aforementioned citation counts (155, 147, 108, 104, 80 and 71), 4 articles with over 100 citations, clearly relevant according to WP:NACADEMIC. --hroest 20:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I immediately found discussion of his work in major newspapers, not mere quote-the-expert type stuff, newspapers in India and Britain diving into scholarly debates. He is deeply involved in the scholarly conversations about the meaning of the archaeological record northwest India. What is needed is an editor familiar with the field willingto beuid a good page. the page we have is shoddy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the sourcing and references back up them meeting WP:NACADEMIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:22, 13 July 2019 (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.