Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malcolm Yarnell

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 delete. Shimeru 22:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Yarnell[edit]

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

This subject of the article, who google indicates is an associate professor, seems to fail WP:ACADEMIC and not meet other potentially applicable notability guidelines like WP:AUTHOR. The article seems to have serious COI issues making it difficult to cull through possible RSs on the article which actually do not support notability. For instance, the quotations used in the lead are attrributed to some sort of compiled amazon reader review. One recent editor who added this and other "references" also blanked the talk page and recent edits were made from an IP of an institution this individual is associated with. Odd. Novaseminary (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Weak Keep - Having the information on Wikipedia harms nothing, deleting it helps nothing. Not selling anything or pushing POV. Is he worthy of inclusion? Borderline. Carrite (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Weak delete. - Arguments made below are, ummmm, borderline compelling. Carrite (talk) 03:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would hardly call the article neutral, though it certainly is not selling any product. If it fails WP:N, then deleting it does help something by keeping WP from becoming an anything goes free for all more akin to a wiki-blog or free homepage webserver than a digital encyclopedia. Regardless, I think he has potential to be notable, and may meet WP:ACADEMIC someday in the future. For now, though, what criterion in WP:ACADEMIC does he borderline meet? Novaseminary (talk) 02:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:PROF, no independent reliable sources, virtually no GS citations, no other indication of notability. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 04:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources seem from reliable journals and independent. Young but notable. Academicwalker (talk) 09:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC) — Academicwalker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There are no journal sources about the subject, merely some publications by the subject. That doesn't satisfy WP:GNG or WP:PROF. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Academicwalker has only edited this AfD, this article, and the article's talk page (which Academicwalker improperly blanked). Assuming good faith, Academicwalker, which of the WP:ACADEMIC notability criteria does this individual meet? Or do you think another guideline is more appropriate? Notability for Wikipedia purposes is not necessarily the same as in other contexts. Here is more on how to discuss AfDs. As Radagast3 noted, the articles need to be about this person. Novaseminary (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not interested in debating technicalities, but the journal reviews are about and not by the subject. Just offering an opinion that he is a scholar worth noting. Really not my concern otherwise. On a different note, if the subtle questioning of motives is how newcomers are treated in editing Wikipedia, not so sure it is worth participating. Make your choice as you see fit, Novaseminary, but please temper any personal evaluations. Academicwalker (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Academicwalker, your blanking of the article's talk page was a significant violation of WP policy, though I assume you did not mean harm and just didn't know better. Whatever the intent, the result was to temporarily remove criticism of the article--as that is all that appeared on the talk page. That, along with the fact that your account is a single purpose account and that allegations of sock-puppetry were lodged against other SPAs editing this article in the past, at the very least raises a question about your neutrality in this discussion. As WP:SPA notes, though, many SPAs are good intentioned. I hope you do become active in Wikipedia. Just be sure to avoid or properly deal with any COIs and take some time to read how to best edit WP via the links in the welcome banner that I just pasted to your talk page. But even if you are the subject of the article himself, any COI or the like doesn't mean the subject is not notable. So, please do argue "technicalities". That is what these discussions are for. More specifically, per Wikipedia:Afd#How_to_discuss_an_AfD, tell us which notability policies or guidelines you think this article meets rather than just stating your opinion. This discussion is not a vote.Novaseminary (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete There is insufficient references to third party, reliable, and independant sources (particulary non-baptist sources) to establish Yernell's notability. The article relies heavily on his many writtings and not on what experts say about his writings or on him. (Being a prolific author is a common trait among mon-notable and fringe religious leaders.) Substantial POV: Many staements not to mention whole sections lack citations - this makes for POV. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A source doesn't need to be "non-Baptist" — just independent. Carrite (talk) 03:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be an academic with a modest publihsed output (so far). Peterkingiron (talk) 23:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with both those facts. He is an academic, and he does have a modest published output so far. How does that satisfy WP:ACADEMIC, though? Novaseminary (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google Scholar gives his published output a h-index of 1. We've usually required something in the 10-to-20 range to satisfy #1 of WP:ACADEMIC. I don't see how he satisfies #2 to #9 either. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This guy is hardly Martin Luther or even Billy Graham, although I'm sure he's a nice guy. His publications are modest, at best, and could be matched by hundreds of other minor theology historians. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically, not yet. 1 relatively minor book, some articles. I do point out that our cutoff is substantially lower than the above comment indicates. And the h-index is pretty irrelevant in theology. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that was aimed at me, what I meant was that our thresholds have varied with the field (adjusting both for typical citation levels, and for the degree of capture of citations by indices such as Google Scholar), but I've never seen anyone fail an AfD based on WP:PROF #1 with a h-index over 20, and I've never seen anyone pass with a h-index below 10 (unless there was a single work with an enormous number of citations). The h-index is of course as relevant in theology as in any other academic discipline. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 07:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was aimed at the general argument; several people have used it at AfD. All agree that the h index has to be seen against the citation practice of the field; it's not reasonable to use any citation measure without field normalization of some sort. But there is still a limitation: I have never seen any published work or even any posting validating its use --or the use of any citation measure whatsoever -- in theology, nor do I know of any work in progress in that area (I just rechecked the SIGMETRICS list and confirmed my memory; but I did find what I consider a authoritative posting from a key researcher [1] ) If you want to say that "of course" it's relevant, can you find some evidence that anyone in the field uses it at all, let alone demonstrated its validity? I make the stronger statement that I do not remember ever seeing its use in any field of the humanities validated either, but I have not checked with an actual search. I'm not prepared to say it's never been used in the humanities, for probably some academic bureaucrat believing in quantitation without regard to validity has tried. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all sure what you mean by "validity" in this context. Apart from the normalisation issue, why would a h-index be less valid in one field than another? And what alternate measure do you have in mind to validate the h-index against? -- Radagast 3 (talk) 09:10, 3 August 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.