Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Cain (historian of science)

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. Black Kite 12:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Cain (historian of science)[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:ACADEMIC; "Joe Cain" and "Joseph Cain" returns 77 and 27 hits on Google Scholar, self-referenced WP:Autobiography. Prod contested by anonymous editor. MuffledThud (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails at academic notability. JBsupreme (talk) 09:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: article seems to be autobiographical, fails WP:Prof, h-index of 5, 9 citations for most-cited work ("Woodger, positivism, and the evolutionary synthesis"). -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ~~Google Scholar~~ WP:PROF. StAnselm (talk) 10:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment GoogleScholar is well known to provide inadequate data for citations in humanities (WP:PROF explicitly mentions this point). I am not saying that the article should be kept (I have not had time to look at the case carefully), but for a historian one would have to check notability using different tools (googlebooks, worldcat, reviews of his writings, book and journal editorships (if any), awards etc). Such a check is harder to make but I would not necessarily interpret goglescholar data in this case as a significant indication that the subject is not notable. Nsk92 (talk) 12:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed, Google Scholar definitely can't be the only measure of notability used, and the broader criteria defined in WP:ACADEMIC must be used for editors assessing notability here. MuffledThud (talk) 12:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree also, and I accept that this is an insufficient rationale. Even with the new references, though, he still doesn't meet WP:PROF. StAnselm (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He does have two academic awards, at least one of them fairly significant[1]. He is also on editorial boards of three journals and is an editor of a book series. There are additional examples of biographical coverage, such as this one[2], for instance. Looks enough to me for passing WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nsk92. Ray^Talk 22:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The article needs more independent references or data on Awards/Prizes --Rirunmot 22:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)
Keep Hazen Prize is sourcable, appears to meet WP:PROF criteria #2. --Joe Decker (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not often we keep an article on an academic based on their educational accomplishments rather than their research accomplishments but the Hazen Prize and the description of his work in the prize announcement are enough to convince me. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2010 (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.