Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Ursini

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) LlamaAl (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Ursini[edit]

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

This living person is not an encyclopedic subject because he is not notable: he is not the subject of any substantial coverage by any independent reliable source. Though it's difficult to tell what the claim to notability would be, WP:BASIC, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:PROFESSOR seem most applicable; the subject fails each guideline readily. He is never the actual topic of coverage, and when he is published, those works are not so thoroughly cited as to carry the subject over notability's academic finish line with nothing more. JFHJr (㊟) 00:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If he has a PhD then he is a published, peer-reviewed researcher. It's pretty hard to exclude those qualifications as non-noteworthy. Яεñ99 (talk) 05:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply — Having a PhD alone is not sufficient to establish encyclopedic noteworthiness. If you feel otherwise, please show a guideline or policy or essay or something to support your position. JFHJr (㊟) 05:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry, it's not my responsibility to prove your point :) I'm sticking to meh point above! I'll toss this in real quick: The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. - a PhD and his other participations as referenced should cover that :) Яεñ99 (talk) 05:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to argue whether all of his things combined would back your point up, but having a PhD doesn't necessarily mean he's made an impact, let alone a significant one. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ren, stay civil. It's not your responsibility to prove my point (not notable subject) but it IS your responsibility to support your own contentions (PhD means notable per WP:PROFESSOR), which are way out in left field, rather than just asserting that impact must have happened. Ta. JFHJr (㊟) 14:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The above discussion about his PhD is obviously irrelevant for the purposes of determining whether he's notable in Wikipedia terms. However, he seems to be a prolific writer who is mentioned in assorted reviews and news sources as an expert on various aspects of film history,[1] and GScholar shows that he's cited quite a bit.[2] If some decently substantial reviews of some of his works can be turned up, a case might be made. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't fret the title so much, but make sure you understand what is meant by a PhD in the American usage - it's not just having one - it's that he generated a body of peer-reviewed, published research to earn one, and followed it with a great quantity of publishings and referenced material as demonstrated. If you don't understand how it fits together, I'd be glad to explain in a talk page rather than place more here. Яεñ99 (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fwiw, I count a Gscholar h-index of 11 or so using the link above, but it's the links at Gnews that convince me this is a pass of WP:AUTHOR. Ray^Talk 17:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My Gnews results are mostly passing mention, the subject talking about something else (not coverage of him), and the subject's name as author of works. Can you offer any results you found that indicate coverage of Ursini, especially that would give way to any amount of encyclopedically biographical detail? JFHJr (㊟) 23:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is a high school teacher, who has co-written some books about film and provided commentaries on some DVDs. The only source provided in the article is IMDb (not a reliable source) plus citations to two of his own books. I am not finding much in the way of citations at Google Scholar and I don't find any reviews of his books. I don't find anything at all ABOUT him in independent reliable sources. Possible copyvio: the article appears to be a verbatim copy of his bio at Amazon.com.[3] --MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Judging by this I think Amazon is lifting Wikipedia articles to use on their site. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. PhD discussion irrelevant: true. High-school teacher: true. However, Ursini seems to be one of these special cases who, despite not working in an environment conducive to scholarship, has become an acknowledged expert through a hefty corpus of work. He has published numerous books, the important points being (1) many of them have respectable institutional holdings, e.g. >700 for The noir style and >500 for Film noir reader, with many of his other books ~200, which alone is arguably sufficient for WP:PROF #1, (2) his books have been cited around 400 times in GS, (3) he has been referred to as an expert on film noir in mainstream publications, e.g. "from film noir experts James Ursini and Alain Silver" in Lansing State Journal of Jun 29, 2005 (unfortunately behind a paywall). I concede that the article is a mess, essentially an unsourced resume started by a WP:SPA account. It should probably be stubbed until proper sourced info can be added. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep per Agricola44, who summarizes the evidence well. I'll be happier when we quote from a few reliable-source reviews of his work, but as Agricola44 says, there are so many references to him as an expert that I think keeping this is worthwhile. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google news and highbeam both show a lot of published reviews of his books, DVD commentaries, and lectures that (while generally brief) paint a picture of him as being well-known for what he does. For instance, a 2007 review of his The Gangster Film Reader in the Palm Beach Post writes that "Alain Silver and James Ursini are undoubtedly the leading experts on film noir" [4]. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2013 (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.