Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Park Turner

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) —Hue Sat Lum 00:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Park Turner[edit]

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

Contested PROD. I was unable to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources and I also don't think that he meets WP:PROF. Jenks24 (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of this entry on Stephen Turner and I have attempted to address the concerns that you have. I have tried to provide additional material that shows that his books and articles have been widely cited and that he is a recognized authority on Max Weber, social practices, social theory, and a number of other academic areas. I am open to any constructive comments on how to write this entry better. I do believe that he meets the professor listing and I thought that I have now added enough material to satisfy the problems about independent reliable sources--various book reviews in academic journals. I would also suggest that his middle name be removed so that the entry reads simply Stephen Turner. I would appreciate any help that you can give me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxweber1864 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You have not shown that he passes WP:ACADEMIC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, you may be right (you often are, in my experience), but let's help him out in trying to address the issues and see if we can make the notability or lack thereof clearer. (Distinguished University Professors at Research 1 schools, usually pass WP:PROF; it's a significant step above full professor). I see that his book The Impossible Science: An Institutional Analysis of American Sociology was reviewed in American Journal of Sociology, Social Forces and, intriguingly, Science [1] (rare for a sociology book) -- books with reviews in good peer-reviewed journals tend to argue for keeping. There may be some question about whether his collaborator should get some credit there, but he is the first listed author (despite being second alphabetically) and all the reviews has said that the two authors have very different views. I see 29 citations on GS for "The Disintegration of American Sociology: Pacific Sociological Association 1988 Presidential Address" which is pretty high for a 1989 research paper in a non-Internet-heavy discipline. His 1994 book received five different reviews. "Max" :-) -- these are the types of things that tend to help garner Keep votes on AfD for professors: citations of their authority through reviews, special chairs, and when possible quotations from other sources praising them as experts in their fields. Looking through the net for what might help you there, I've found enough that I feel justified in voting Strong Keep. You may know of additional materials offline that can help you in convincing others. (I think that Stephen Park Turner is a better place for the article since that's what he publishes under mostly. We can do some cleanup on the article's formatting if it's kept.) -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am inclined to agree with Mscuthbert. Esp. wrt the article in Science and the Distinguished University Professor title. Also agree with Keeping the title of the article. Roodog2k (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF#C5. The many reviews of his books in venues such as Times Higher Education are also persuasive. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:48, 29 June 2012 (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.