Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Horowitz

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Horowitz

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

Disputed PROD. Concern was "Fails the professor test. The referencing has expanded since the PROD tag was added. However, the only source that asserts a claim to notability ("an authority on cuneiform texts", as stated here) fails in not being independent of the subject. ClaretAsh (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concern was "Fails the professor test. That criticism seems unlikely as the author of the text surely isn't W.HorowitzDrift chambers (talk) 14:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

probably meets criteria from 6. The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution'or major academic society.Drift chambers (talk) 3:14 pm, Today (UTC+1) as shown from http://www.afhu.org/law/first-israel-cuneiform-tablet-uncovered-parallels-code-hammurabi is ...Prof. Wayne Horowitz of the Hebrew University Institute of Archaeology...Drift chambers (talk) 3:22 pm, Today (UTC+1)

Comment Please read WP:PROF and its footnotes. Being professor at a major academic institution is not what is meant with "elected or appointed at the highest level". Similarly, a faculty page (including one for a visiting fellow) is not independent. It can be used to source uncontroversial information, it does not enter into any consideration of notability. --Crusio (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

although mentioned in the 5th sentence from the head of WP:PROF - ....conversely, if they are notable for their primary job, they do not have to be notable academics to warrant an article. & (9th &10th sentence)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 >Concern was "Fails the professor test. (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC) |Drift chambers (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to say. Are you arguing that this person is notable under another guideline than WP:PROF? --Crusio (talk) 15:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N>Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice" > ...http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/History/Early+History+-+Archaeology/Cuneiform_tablet_uncovered_Hazor_26-Jul-2010.htm (please goto: page title & 4th paragraph in text column)Drift chambers (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you're poviding this URL as evidence of notability. If that is the case, though, I note that the source merely indicates that Mr Horowitz is the head translator of the cuneiform document. However, leading a translation team is not, in itself, cause for inclusion. Claret Ash 15:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1.Instruction creep from 2.(Notability in English Wikipedia:Criteria;rules) located these at 17:24 Drift chambers (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References for 1. are [1] & [2]Drift chambers (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are attemping to say. Perhaps you could rephrase your words. Claret Ash 15:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One book with 116 cites in GS and a long tail, h-index of 7. Meets WP:Prof#C1 in low cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I agree with Xxanthippe that the book with the cites and the review of it is sufficient to show him an expert. Together with the other publications, it comes near meeting WP:AUTHOR as well. Additionally, although it is true that we do not formally regard holding a professorship at even the highest level research university necessarily notable, in practice almost nobody with such a rank in a university of the quality of Hebrew University has been deleted in recent years. The appointment at that level is not made at such universities except to authorities in their field, on the basis of their writing and multiple external references. DGG ( talk ) 12:53, 25 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.