Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Eriksen

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) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Eriksen[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF. No substantial research according to GScholar. Not a member of any prestigious society. The Journal "Early Modern Culture Online" which the subject is a general editor is not very reputable (not many popular papers according to GScholar). — Fιnεmαnn ^(talk) 18:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily passes requirements. See google books.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which guidelines does the subject meet and by virtue of which references? ^Bongo_matic 00:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Happy to change my position if evidence surfaces, but I don't see any evidences that subject meets notability requirement. WP:GHITS referred to by Dr. Blofeld don't appear to include any items that reflect coverage of the subject, and the books and articles written by the subject don't appear to have been reviewed or cited in a manner that demonstrates notability. ^Bongo_matic 00:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep Both Dr. B and Bongo left notices for me on this one. My opinion quite regardless of what they may want to say to each other, is that he has sufficient publications and editorships in his field to make him notable under both WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. G Scholar is irrelevant as a negative argument in the humanities, especially for someone outside the US, and I am surprised any editor here who knows the discussions on the subject and the way the index is constructed would still use it as an argument. It can prove or at least strongly indicate notability ; it can never disprove it. DGG ( talk ) 14:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as no:Wikipedia:Relevanskriterier, aka meets WP:PROF and WP:GNG.--Cerejota (talk) 23:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since we are discussing cites in Google Scholar, let's say what they are. They are 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 2, 1. We are well aware that cites in the humanities are lower than in the sciences but, even allowing for the difference (which editors are now recognising) these cites seem low for a writer, in the English language, on the fairly popular topic of early modern culture. Maybe too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

To give a perhaps rather extreme example, another historian of early modern culture, A L Rowse has a GS h index of 19, in contrast to the 4 of the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. Something seems rotten in the state of Norway. We have three editors—one of whom is in the estimation of many the single most rational and knowledgeable in matters both deletion-related and academy-related—who all opine "keep" without reference to any specific facts or guidelines. It is true that Google scholar can "never disprove" notability, but notability must be proven (i.e., demonstrated with reference to the guidelines), not disproved. ^Bongo_matic 01:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I quote guideline: "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." Certainly this person's works can be at least be verified in the English language, but WP:CSB encourages that we do not normally expect in-depth English sources for someone who has his work and notability in a non-English language country. I encourage we be more active than the delsort I placed above in seeking input from those editors able to read and search Norwegian databases for information about this man, and place just a little less trust in a Find sources template tuned to search English-language sources. We're cautioned ny WP:ACADEMIC that "This guideline is independent from the other subject specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc.: it is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject specific notability guidelines. Conversely, if an academic is notable under this guideline, his or her possible failure to meet other subject specific notability guidelines is irrelevant." So again, rather than judging him be what we can find (or not) in English, I would hope a Norwegian wikipedian comes forward and offers an language-specific analysis per WP:ACADEMIC's Criteria, General notes, and Notes to specific criteria, as what can be determined as worthy of notice to Academia in Norway, should be good enough for us at en.Wikipedia. And I am led by WP:ACADEMIC to its Citation metrics and its caution therein that Web of Knowledge and Scopus would be the better choices than a English-language Google scholar search, specially as it further cautions "Many journals, additionally, do not permit Google Scholar to list their articles" and that Google Scholar "For non-scientific subjects, it is especially dicey." One would have to agree that this particular academic is not involved in a scientific subject. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is A L Rowse. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Rowse certainly is prolific. I note that the article on the British historian has citations to English-language sources. But in understanding the guideline cautions inre the vageries of an English-language G S search, specially for a non-English-language non-scientific academic, I will await input from Norwegian-reading Wikipedians, able to find and offer non-English sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rowse was certainly prolific but, more to the point where notability is concerned, widely cited. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Why do you think that the subject's work is not primarily in the English language? His primary subject is English literature, the journal he edits is in English, he's taught at schools in Britain—it would be expected that the vast majority of his output would be in English. What does Scopus turn up?

No evidence has been pointed to here that suggests his work has been "influential". I'm not saying that his work isn't influential, just that there doesn't seem to be any reason to think that it is. ^Bongo_matic 07:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the article. While his having visiting fellowships at Cambridge, England and Villa I Tatti, Florence, Italy, and his being general editor of the interdiciplinary journal Early Modern Culture Online and general editor of the bookseries Early Modern and Modern Studies, are indicative that he reads and writes English and likely Italian, his professorial duties are and have been primarily in Norway. Quite nice that he studies English literature and teaches it to Norwegians (no systemic bias in his teachings), but who wants to bet his classes at University of Oslo (1977-1986'), University of Tromsø (1986-2003), University of Bergen (1997-1999), and University of Agder (2003-present) are taught to Norweigians in the Norweigian language, and not English? Is there an expectation an academic in Norway is not covered in Norweigan sources?? And more, his receiving the 2007 Agder Academy of Sciences and Letters's 'Award for Outstanding Research' [1] seems like something that an average Joe citizen does not get. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The language in which he teaches isn't relevant to the number of hits his work would have in English language-centric databases (although as an aside irrelevant to this discussion, I'd guess that English literature classes at the university and post-graduate levels in Norway are taught largely in English). Moreover, the award from Agder is certainly not something that an average Joe would get--primarily because the average Joe doesn't do research at all. Notability requires that an academic award be "highly prestigious at a national or international level", which is a different standard from whether an average Joe gets it.

Again I'm not saying that he's not notable, just that nobody has given any reason to suspect he is. Nobody has said that the Agder award is sufficient to meet WP:PROF, or that any of the books or articles he's written (either singly or in aggregate) has made a significant impact on his discipline, or any other.

Frankly, the subject's resume looks much like any academic who's been practicing for a long time—articles written, surveys edited, sabbaticals taken, the odd award won. That's not what WP:PROF is about. Prove me wrong! ^Bongo_matic 09:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more than odd if his translations (of English writing) were in English or had English reviews. Cloveapple (talk) 06:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No further information that would lend support to this BLP has emerged. Clearly a respectable academic career but notability has not yet been attained. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
~~Delete~~ for lack of evidence of passing any of the WP:PROF criteria. It may well be that he is influential in the Norwegian history community, but bare assertions of that carry no weight; we need actual evidence. The citation record doesn't bear out criterion C1, the award appears to be a local one that doesn't rise to the level of C2, and Early Modern Culture Online is too new a journal for C8. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm updating to weak delete on the basis of finding this book of essays to Eriksen. WP:PROF says that such things "may be used as contributing factors (usually not sufficient individually)" towards criterion C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD was not transcluded in the logs. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 18:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears very notable, author of many norwegian books, we just need an expansion of his description, to know more about him himself, if that can be done, then there is no reason for deletion. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I started looking in indexes for sources and have started listing them on the article talk page. There are reviews that focus just on his work as well as ones that review his work along with others. The reviews for The Building in the text alone surely qualify him for WP:AUTHOR Cloveapple (talk) 06:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see result for the guy as ""Roy T. Eriksen" and "Roy Tommy Eriksen". Dream Focus 08:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Eriksen seems to me to pass WP:Author #3 The person has created ... a significant or well-known work ...that has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical reviews. Two reviews of The Building in the text are now cited on the page. Burroughs, C. (2002) and Brooks, D. A. (2004) (Msrasnw (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

PS: Added another review of : The Building in the text. Alberti to Shakespeare and Milton, 2001.

So now we have three independent periodical reviews of a significant work of his cited in the article:

* Burroughs, C.(2002). Review of Eriksen, R. T.The Building in the Text: Alberti to Shakespeare and Milton. Renaissance Quarterly, December 55, 4, 1431-1433.

* Brooks, D. A. (2004). The Building in the Text: Alberti to Shakespeare and Milton (review). South Central Review, March 21, 1, 139-142.

* Cibelli, Deborah H. (2002) Roy Eriksen: The Building in the Text: Alberti to Shakespeare and Milton (2001). Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 33, No. 1, Spring: 287-88.

Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Not nearly enough. For scholars, we are looking for many hundreds of citations to their works. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

that's total nonsense, especially as applied to the humanities. Even in most of the sciences, that's way beyond our standard, and amounts in most fields to fame, which is much more than notability. We've never looked for that, we've never decided a AfD based on that supposed criterion, A review means much more than a citation--its an independent evaluation of a specific work, considered important enough to evaluate. And, fwiw, all sources available to us for citations are anglocentric. DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that a review is worth more than a citation, but eight cites in GS and a handful of reviews is still not enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

A question about the use of WP:Author for academics: WP:Prof argues that This guideline is independent from the other subject specific notability guidelines, such as .... WP:AUTH etc. and it is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject specific notability guidelines. What is wrong with the argument that the multiple reviews of Eriksen's book in journals meets WP:Auth? PS: I have added the festschrift in his honour. Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- What is wrong with the argument is that basically every assistant professor in the humanities writes a book that gets multiple journal reviews. It sets the bar too low. The festschrift is very different, though — those are much less common. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would seem to me that those with significant or well known books with multiple independent reviews, even if they are academics, may meet WP:author. My question is more about Eriksen (and cases like this.) Shouldn't those wishing to delete it not also address the possibility that he meets our WP:author guidelines. Perhaps the interpretation that WP:author is too lax for academics might need including somehow in guidelines rather than just ignoring the fact that WP:prof actually suggests that we might also use WP:Auth for academics. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:15, 22 October 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.