Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricardo Duchesne

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. It is clearly established below that the community, at large, does not find that Duchesne meets any of our notability guidelines, due largely to a lack of sources written about him and a lack of citations of his academic work. The procedural keep opinions below, while given in good faith, are clearly not enough to overbalance the rest of the comments in favor of deletion, regardless of whether or not this nomination was made in good faith. lifebaka++ 02:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Duchesne[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ricardo Duchesne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see how any of the criteria in WP:ACADEMIC are satisfied. 1) There is no evidence that the subject has made any significant impact upon his discipline. 2) There is no evidence that the subject has received a prestigious award at either the national or the international levels. 3) There is no evidence that he has been elected to any prestigious scholarly societies. 4) This person clearly has not made any impact upon higher education. 5) The subject does not hold any distinguished titles or academic positions. 6) This subject has not held a "a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post" at any universty. 7) The subject clearly has not had any impact, let alone a substantial impact, outside of academia. 8) There is no evidence that the subject has been the editor of any journal. Google Scholar, while not a flawless citation index, shows that Duchesne's most cited work has only been cited 12 times. There are graduate students who have been cited more times than that. In addition, his "main work" was only published this year and has not been cited by anyone. Also, there is good reason to think the subject created this page himself. How could anyone possibly know that he received an award for his dissertation? There is no evidence that the subject meets the criteria of scholarly notability. Unless that evidence is produced, I therefore propose that it be deleted. BlueonGray (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not cited enough in Google Scholar to be authoritative (some of the 12 citations are also duplicates); no reviews; no major posts, societies, or named chairs. The only substantial piece I can see is actually a response by the author of a book that Duchesne reviewed...so yeah, not notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I count over 35 citations in Google Scholar, including by leading scholars in the field such as David Landes, Peer Vries (University of Vienna), John Hobson (The Eastern Origins of Western civilization), Roy Bin Wong (Director of the UCLA Asia Institute), Jack Goldstone, Tonio Andrade, Joseph M. Bryant and many others. One would have rather difficulties finding someone important from Duchesne's field who did not debate him. He is one of the important thinkers and he is integral part of the debate in the English-speaking world, like it BlueonGray or not. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • 35 citations spread out over multiple articles is not evidence of noteworthiness. Even if a single piece were cited 35 times, that would still be of questionable importance. Influential scholars are those who have published articles or books that have been cited hundreds, if not thousands, of times. Duchesne's most successful piece has 12 citations -- less, if you discount the duplicates.--BlueonGray (talk) 03:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Below you are saying you are "new to Wikipedia", so how can you claim you know the threshold for notability? Giving an absolute number as necessary threshold seems absurd, since the field of historical sociology is in any case far smaller than other fields of history. I request you again to provide the allegedly 12 citations, I'll add the rest. You will see than that most authorities in the field debated him. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 06:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • According to Google Scholar, Duchesne's most cited essay, "Between sinocentrism and eurocentrism," has been cited no more than 12 times -- less if you discount the duplicates. That is very weak, indeed. In fact, for a full professor, that is a quite meager accomplishment.--BlueonGray (talk) 11:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Ricardo Duchesene absolutely meets WP:Notability. People should be wary: This is a bad faith nomination and clear misuse of AfD. BlueonGray is a single-purpose account who just edits this article and hold a particular grudge against Duchesne. He is currently for the 2nd time at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive201#Ricardo Duchesne. I strongly suspect BlueonGray is identical with this Blue on Gray (navigate to Comments on this Article: Posted by Blue on Gray, Feb 12, 2011 5:28 PM and Apr 24, 2011 10:55 PM), so he has a strong political agenda. He got a response by Duchesne which pissed him and now he stalks the article. Poor class.
This is btw the second time BlueonGray tries to delete the article. After the first time, the article was sufficiently expanded and restored. I suspect BlueonGray is some disgruntled colleague, and it is clear he is not here in the interests of Wikipedia but because of some personal crusade. For this disruptive behaviour I've proposed a block at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If Duchesne "absolutely" meets the criteria in WP:ACADEMIC, then surely that can be demonstrated for everyone. What exactly is the evidence of his scholarly significance and influence?--BlueonGray (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He is a full professor, and has published several dozen articles in peer-reviewed journals and recently a book with Brill. Now back to you and your dubious motives. Are you a colleague of Duchesne? You are aware that since March you have only edited this one article, invariably in a negative manner. I think you should disclose your IP to an admin, so that your real identity can be determined. You should be aware that WP is no WP:battleground: Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles. So, are you identical with this Blue on Gray who is so acid on Duchesne in the Racism in Academia article, yes or no? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But there are lots of full professors and there are lots of academics, many of whom are not full professors, who have published several dozen articles in peer-reviewed journals and books with Brill. That does not meet the criteria in WP:ACADEMIC. The criteria for notability are for scholars who stand out from the rest.--BlueonGray (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BlueonGray's editing of the article has been disruptive in the past, but trying to delete an article on a person one believes is non-notable is not an inherently disruptive act. I don't see that you've provided a keep rationale here that rebuts any of the delete arguments put forward - please take complaints about user conduct to the appropriate forum and work here on putting together a policy-based keep rationale. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Coming to WP only in order to try to erase an article about a person with which you have had at another place an acrimonius debate is in itself an absolutely disruptive act (WP:battleground). Again RD has published in many noteworthy peer-reviewed journal such as Science & Society, Journal of Peasant Studies, Review of Radical Political Economics, The European Legacy, Journal für Entwicklungspolitik and wrote chapter in books. He has also recently published a book with Brill, so this whole Afd is sadly a kind of lame battling attempt by some dubious outsider who misuses WP, nothing more. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, publishing in many noteworthy peer-reviewed journals does not meet the criteria in WP:ACADEMIC. Who has cited these articles? What evidence is there of the noteworthiness of the subject?--BlueonGray (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The history of Western civilization and the 'Rise of the West' are absolutely noteworthy subjects in history. RD has been for years part of the debate. Scirus, for one, gives 158 hits for him Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody said these are not noteworthy subjects. By "subject," I am referring to Duchesne. The question is whether Ricardo Duchesne is a noteworthy scholar. Again, according to Google Scholar, his most cited work has been cited only 12 times. Do you have any evidence of a more substantial number of citations for anything he has published?--BlueonGray (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Duchesne is actually cited more than 35 times and that by many of the most important authorities. Everybody who knows the field will immediately recognize these scholars. The only important figure who did not cite and debate Duchesne is Andre Gunder Frank, quite apparently because he died the same year Duchesne's review of his work was published (2005). So what evidence do you have against Duchesne's notability? Name me five important scholars of his field in the last decade who did not cite him? You won't find them, but be welcomed to go ahead. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question: What field is this, exactly? World History? Historical sociology? In one of my comments below, I give a couple of examples of influential world historians. Here, I will give examples of influential historical sociologists. These include 1) Charles Tilly, who holds a distinguished professorship at Columbia and whose work has been cited thousands of times; 2) Randall Collins, who holds a distinguished professorship at UPenn and whose work has also been thousands of times; 3) Orlando Patterson, who holds a distinguished professorship at Harvard University and whose work has been cited thousands of times; 4) Theda Skocpol, who has a distinguished professorship at Harvard and whose work has been cited thousands of times; the late 5) the late Giovanni Arrighi (d. 2009), who held a distinguished professorship at Johns Hopkins and whose work has been cited thousands of times. Duchesne simply does not compare to these scholars. Also, according to Google Scholar, none of them cite Duchesne. Please, the very suggestion that Duchesne has influenced all of the most eminent scholars in either World History or Historical sociology is so extreme as to be inevitably and demonstrably wrong.--BlueonGray (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I wholeheartedly agree Wikipedia should not be a battleground. That is why there are neutral and impartial criteria in WP:ACADEMIC. I would like to stick to those criteria.--BlueonGray (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, you are still evading the question whether this resentful BlueonGray is you? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's irrelevant. I would be grateful if you could kindly stick to the criteria.--BlueonGray (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not irrelevant. Disruptive single-purpose accounts with a WP:battleground mentality are usually blocked from Wikipedia and you fit the bill 100%. So we can conclude you are this enraged BlueonGray? Why do misuse WP for your personal antipathies? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive behavior is focusing on everything other than the criteria in WP:ACADEMIC. I would like to focus on those criteria. So far, Duchesne does not meet any one of them.--BlueonGray (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Battleground[edit]

Third-party users have a right to be informed that User:BlueonGray is a single-purpose account who has been ever editing only this one article, invariably negatively. He is identical in name with one BlueonGray who actually 'debated' Duchesne this February on a Canadian site in a resentful manner: For the record, if anyone is turned off by Western civilization, it is because of the arrogance and tastelessness of its self-appointed representatives like Ricardo Duchesne. (Posted by Blue on Gray, Feb 12, 2011 5:28 PM). Nine days later Wikipedia's BlueonGray registered. Wikipedia's BlueonGray refuses to acknowledge whether he is the same person (see above). The whole Afd is, given its unsubstantiateness, a thinly-veiled case of WP:Battleground, namely Wikipedia is not a place to...import personal conflicts. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please. I am new to Wikipedia. I am here to evaluate the merits of the entry on Duchesne, which appear to be negligible. Anyone can go to your user talk page and see the edit wars you have been involved in and the number of times other users have threatened to block you for disruptive behavior. My suggestion is that you stick to the issue at hand.--BlueonGray (talk) 04:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you have been "evaluating" it since March with unreferenced edits violating WP:BLP, two AfDs and anonymous vandalism by a IP from Toronto. Nice acting on your part. You registering only here to mislead other users in his so-called negligibilty. I challenge you to list all citations you know and I'll provide the rest. So please cite the allegedly "12" citations, I'll add up the rest. Thanks Gun Powder Ma (talk) 06:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first part is irrelevant and false. Regarding the second part: according to Google scholar, Duchesne's most successful piece, "Between sinocentrism and eurocentrism," has been cited a mere 12 times -- less if you discount the duplicates. That is quite paltry.--BlueonGray (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
for the record, User:Gun Powder Ma has a history of importing personal conflicts from internet forums like chinahistoryforum.com and allempires.com. In fact, his spat with User:Intranetusa originated from a dispute at Chinahistoryforum, where under his account Tibet Libre he dragged over disputes on Roman metal production figures into Wikipedia. I find it in extremely bad faith that Gun Powder Ma knew about the WP:battleground policy, and is using it as a weapon to silence BlueonGray while Gun Powder Ma displayed his battleground mentality in dragging over his personal disputes here.
Not only that, Gun Powder Ma himself displays tendencies of a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, given that Throughout his editing career, his edits have consisted mostly of trying to downgrade the achievements of nonwestern civilizations, like Chinese, Arab, Indian, persian, and africans, while glorifying a eurocentric point of view. If his ire was only directed against a single civilization, such as China, he could reasonably claim to be against sinocentrism. but no, his edits consists of belittling all non western civilizations, which he has also done under the account name of Gun Powder Ma at allempires.com. His edits also consists of glorifying individuals against multicultaralism and Islam like Thilo Sarrazin , and he displayed the same sentiment and thought as Ricardo Duchesne through his edits on wikipedia and on multiple forums which leads me to believe that his only purpose in creating this article is promoting Mr. Duchesne's views.
see this report for evidence of the allegations I made above.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citation and WP:ACADEMIC[edit]

Contrary to what BlueonGray claims, I am currently counting over 30-35 separate citations (without duplications) by many of the most notable scholars in the field, including entire peer-reviewed articles by some of these leading figures exclusively devoted to Duchesne's theories. The question is is it necessary to cite them one by one here for people who are not that familiar with this field? I could do that, if need arises. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, basically per Roscelese. Citability in GScholar is extremely low, with h-index somewhere in low single digits. Having 35 separate citations total is far below of what we usually require for satisfying WP:PROF#C1 on citability grounds. I am not seeing anything else in the record to hang one's hat on in terms of passing WP:PROF - such as signifiant awards after grad school, journal editorships, prestigious lectures/lecture series given, extensive published of the subject's work or anything else indicating passing WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Your page says you are interested in world history, so you'll know that his citability includes nearly all authorities in the field: David Landes, Peer Vries, John Hobson, Roy Bin Wong, Jack Goldstone, Tonio Andrade, Ian Morris (historian) and many more. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 06:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question: What is your field, exactly? World History? World History is a very, very big and ancient field, going back to Herodotus. A notable contemporary world historian would be someone like Christopher Bayly, who holds a distinguished professorship at Cambridge and whose work has been cited hundreds of times. A notable world historian would be someone like Immanuel Wallerstein, who has had a very distinguished career and whose work has been cited literally thousands of times. The claim that Duchesne has been cited by "nearly all authorities" in the field of World History, if that is indeed the field to which you are referring, is demonstrably false. In any case, when compared to the work of notable scholars, 35 citations in total and 12 maximum for a single piece is really quite paltry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueonGray (talk • contribs) 12:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC) --BlueonGray (talk) 12:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
World History, as the Eurocentric and the California School discusses it, is largely refrained to the post-1500 period, when the world become through the voyages of discovery one world. Therefore, the field is not very large, largely restricted to the 1500-1800, and citations are generally relatively low. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can't have it both ways. On the one hand, you want to claim that Duchesne is some sort of important and influential scholar. On the other hand, when it's pointed out that almost no one has cited him, you then emphasize how miniscule his field is. Then, how have historical sociologists like Orlando Patterson, Theda Skocpol, Randall Collins, Charles Tilly, Immanuel Wallerstein, and Giovanni Arrighi managed to produce scholarship cited by thousands of people? Again, you can't have it both ways.--BlueonGray (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First of all, Mr. Duchesne is just one of hundreds of unimportant professors who have so far, not been noted by any major scholars. Secondly, the way the article was written was in a manner designed to promote Mr. Duchesne's views, I have removed violations of WP:PEACOCK from the article, and the creator of the article, User:Gun Powder Ma has been inserting Duchesne's work onto multiple other articles and calling it "influential", which may be seen as an attempt at puffery. See This report for the questionable behavior by the creator of the articleDÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

WP:Academic requests for notability a "substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates". Both is the case for Duchesne as can be seen from below. I did a search for works only in English which shows that

  • A. Duchesne has been cited by most authorities in the field, including David Landes (the leading Eurocentrist and probably single-most living scholar in the entire field), Bin Wong, Jack Goldstone, John M. Hobson (three of the four leading scholars of the opposing California School), Robert Brenner, Robert Finley and Patrick O'Brien.
  • B. he has published in many well-known peer-reviewed journals on history and sociology, including Science & Society, Journal of Peasant Studies, Review of Radical Political Economics, The European Legacy, Journal für Entwicklungspolitik, The Journal of the Historical Society', apart from articles in several monographs. His recent monograph is published by Brill, one of the most renowned publishing houses in the humanities worldwide.
Articles published directly in response to Duchesne work include
  1. Bin Wong, "Beyond Sinocentrism and Eurocentrism", Science & Society, Vol. 67, No. 2 (Summer 2003), pp. 173-184.
  2. Jack Goldstone, "Europe vs. Asia: Missing Data and Misconceptions" Science & Society, Vol. 67, No. 2 (Summer 2003), pp. 184-195.
  3. Bin Wong, "Early Modern Economic History in the Long Run," Science & Society, Vol. 68, No1 (Spring 2004), pp. 80-90.
  4. Peer Vries (Professor at The University of Vienna, former Visiting Scholar at London School of Economics, editor of the Journal of Global History: "Is California the measure of all things global? A rejoinder to Ricardo Duchesne." World History Connected 2.2 (2005): 30 pars. 22 Jun. 2006.
  5. John M. Hobson (London School of Economics): "Explaining the Rise of the West: A Reply to Ricardo Duchesne." The Journal of the Historical Society, Vol. 6, No.4 (December 2006), pp 579-599
Cited by other scholars (selection)
  1. Govind P. Sreenivasan, /The Peasants of Ottobeuren, A Rural Society in Early Modern Europe/ (Cambridge UP, 2004).
  2. G.M. Tamas, "Telling The Truth About Class." In Leo Panitch and Colin Leys, eds., /Telling the Truth/ (LeftWord, 2005).
  3. B.H. Moss, "Republican Socialism and the Making of the Working Class in Britain, France, and the United States: A Critique of Thompsonian Culturalism," /Comparative Studies in Society and History/, Vol. 35, No.2 (1993).
  4. B.H. Moss, "Marx and the Permanent Revolution in France: Background to the Communist Manifesto," /Socialist Register/ (1998).
  5. Joseph M. Bryant, "The West and the Rest Revisited: Debating Capitalist Origins, European Colonialism, and the Advent of Modernity," /Canadian Journal of Sociology/, Vol. 31, No. 4 (2006).
  6. Robert Markley, /The Far East and the English Imagination, 1600-1739/. (Cambridge UP, 2006).
  7. Berhanu Abehaz, "Persistent Stasis in a Tributary Mode of Production: The Peasant Economy of Ethiopia," /Journal of Agrarian Change/, Vol. 5, No.3 (2003).
  8. Neil Davidson, "How Revolutionary Were the Bourgeois Revolutions?" /Historical Materialism/, Vol. 13, No. 3 (2005).
  9. Robert Brenner and Christopher Isett, "England's Divergence from China's Yangzi Delta: Property Relations, Microeconomics, and Patterns of Development," /The Journal of Asian Studies/, Vol. 61, No. 2 (2002), 609-662.
  10. David Landes, "Why England and the West? Why Not China?" Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Summer 2006).
  11. David Laibman, "The End of History? The Problem of Agency and Change". /Science and Society/, Vol. 70, No. 2 (2006), pp180-204.
  12. Eric Mielants, /The Origins of Capitalism and the Rise of the West /(Temple University Press, 2007).
  13. Peter Coclanis, "Atlantic World or Atlantic/World." /The William and Mary Quarterly/. Vol 63, No. 4 (October 2006)
  14. Peter Gran, "Modern World History as the Rise of the Rich" /History Compass/ 2007.
  15. R. Langlois, "The Closing of the Sociological Mind" /The Canadian Journal of Sociology/, Vol 33, No. 1 (2008).
  16. Robert Finley, "The Voyages of Zhen He: State Power and Maritime Trade in Ming China". /The Journal of the Historical Society/. Vol 8, No. 3 (2008).
  17. Jonathan Reynolds, "Africa and World History: from Antipathy to Synergy/," History Compass/, Vol 15, No. 6 (2007).
  18. Christ Isett, State, /Peasant, and Merchant on the Manchurian Frontier, 1644-1862/. Stanford University Press, 2007.
  19. Peer Vries, "The California School and Beyond: How to Study the Great Divergence," /Austrian Journal of Development Studies/, Vol 24, No 4 (2008).
  20. Marcel van der Linden, /Workers of the World. Essays Toward a Global Labor History/. Brill 2008.
  21. Eric Mielants, "The Epistemological Challenges of Studying the Global Economic Crisis and its Social and Political Consequences in the Long Run," /Revista Versus Academica/ (Agosto 2009).
  22. R. Prazniak, "Menzies and the New Chinoiserie: Is Sinocentrism the Answer to Eurocentrism in Studies of Modernity?" /The Medieval History Journal/, vol. 13, No1. (2010).
  23. Philippe Minard, "Revolution Industrielle: Divergence Orient-Occident/" Revue de synthese/. Vol 131. No. 3 (2010).
  24. Patrick O'Brien, "Ten Years of Debate on the Origins of the Great Divergence between the Economies of Europe and China during the Era of Mercantilism and Industrialization," /Reviews in History/ (February 2011). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
World History scholarship isn't something I know much about but I suspect I'm not the only one who's having a bit of trouble with the fact it's claimed he has been cited by nearly all the leading authorities in the field yet only 5 of them seem to be blue links. I recognise it's possible it's simply a field we don't cover well (i.e. those people may be notable) and academia in general is an area we still have limited coverage. And there's also risk of a self fulfilling prophecy if we keep deleting all the articles. (Although I hope it's recognised this also works in the reverse. If the claim is made he's been cited or debated most of the leading scholars and when we look at these leading scholars, the only evidence we have that they're leading scholars is that they've debated the other leading scholars, we end up with the same problem.) But combined with the low number of times he's been cited and lack of evidence of meeting other areas of the academics notability guidelines it doesn't seem to be compelling. If World History is really such an obscure field then perhaps there would simply be no sources. It's worth remembering that notability is not so much to do with significance but sourcing. The subject specific guidelines like Notability (academics) usually primarily refer to significance based on the assumption people with that much significance will have sources but it seems questionable if that will apply if we have to relax the criteria so much for what it seems to be claimed is an obscure field. Nil Einne (talk) 08:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as you know referring to the number of "blue links" is Wikipedia:Self-reference and does not help us establishing the notability of the authors independently. That is why I am a bit frustrated at how the discussion goes. I know the field quite good, and I know that nearly all scholars have debated him but how can I demonstrate this if people don't know much about the subject and the players? Again, with a single exception I recognize all of the most important names in the field have debated Duchesne.
The AfD starter, for one, unfortunately does not seem to know much at all because he actually thinks the field of "world history" strechts back to antiquity! This is factually wrong. In reality, "world history" is a field of history which deals with events beginning with early modernity, when the world became one true world system during the Age of Discovery.
As you see, most of the other WP articles on world historians are very undeveloped, even of the top authority himself, David Landes. That is why I don't understand why the comparatively well-researched article on Duchesne should be deleted. We would rob WP of one of the few entries on scholars in the field we have. This does not make sense. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And your reasons based on Wikipedia policy? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Indeed, editors must give reasons other than their personal opinion. If we went be personal opinions, wikipedia wouldn't be much of an encyclopedia anymore. Ricardo Duchense is not more notable than the myriad of other professors who have written papers. There are thousands of them.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 00:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is no use listing the articles that cite Duchesne's work. Anyone can go to Google Scholar and see that he has been cited only 30 times. You couldn't possibly list all the publications that cite a real scholar like Randall Collins or Charles Tilly, because there would be thousands and thousands of such publications, and it would take up far too much space. The very fact that you can list them here in so short a space demonstrates precisely how low the number of citations is for his work.--BlueonGray (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: One basic piece of logic: biographical entries for scholars should be evaluated according to independent standards of scholarly excellence and noteworthiness, not vice versa. If scholarly noteworthiness were set according to the accomplishments of Ricardo Duchesne, then every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a few publications and a handful of citations would automatically be entitled to a biographical entry. That would be preposterous. The point of these entries is to highlight exceptional scholars, not mediocrities who fail to stand out from the rest.--BlueonGray (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. GS cites are 12, 8, 4, 4, 3 to give an h index of 4. Totally inadequate for WP:Prof#C1. Is there anything else? Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: This is a rather schematic argument: h-index is designed primarily for scientists of the natural science, where the citations are much higher than in the humanities (I'd say by a factor of ten or more). In the humanities, however, much less articles are published. WP:Academic is adamant about this, too. Second, remember that RD publishing history mostly goes back only ten years. This comparatively short period of time is another reasoning why counting socks with absolute numbers in the h-index is misleading. You ask for anything else? Start addressing the fact the Duchesne has been debating with most of the notable scholars in the field. This means he has been recognized widely as an important figure in the discourse. This is a strong reason for a keep. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 07:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Have you addressed the fact the RD has been debated by most of the most influential thinkers in the field where he is active (world history, 1500-1800)? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 07:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is that actually true? By "debated" do you mean "Duchesne reviewed a book by X, so X responded to Duchesne's criticisms in a separate article"? Not that "has debated a notable person" is a measure of notability anyway. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Conflict of Interest[edit]

Extended content

this is copied from my post at ANI, but I agreed to stop the dispute at ANI and bring the problem here, so this is not forumshopping.

Gun Powder Ma has engaged in WP:PEACOCK/puffery on Duchesne's part, appearing to have a conflict of interest with him

Gun Powder Ma calls Duchesne's work an "influential critique" on another article, violating WP:PEACOCK
below this is a list of times GPM inserted Duchesne's work into multiple articles on history and "multiculturalism"
[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]
GPM calling H. S. Harris the "foremost Hegelian scholar" he changed it to "most influential", which still violates WP:PEACOCK, however, I've just removed it, he might change it back.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any violation of WP:COI. Calling someones work "influential" isn't a COI William M. Connolley (talk) 07:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back to your scheduled discussion[edit]

And your reasons based on Wikipedia policy? Xxanthippe (talk) 07:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I am rather interest in yours, since you seem to misunderstand and overinterpret h-index, as if RD were not publishing in the humanities where counts are quantitatively much less, by an entire order of magnitude(!), than in the natural sciences. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 07:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Then how do you explain the fact that other sociologists, such as David Bloor, Amitai Etzioni, Arjun Appadurai, Bruno Latour, and Ulrich Beck, have produced scholarly works cited by thousands of people?--BlueonGray (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are all familiar with the vagaries of the h-index by now and make allowance for them. I am still interested in your own, so far unstated, reasons. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I have contributed them above, so why don't you read them? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My question was addressed to Athenean, or are you answering on his behalf? Xxanthippe (talk) 11:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • procedural keep - this looks to be a bad faith nom - BlueonGray has engaged in deliberate vandalism of the article, e.g. [10]; see-also [11]. It is also clear that BoG has an undisclosed COI on this subject - see the COIN. All the debate here has been far too polarised by this; I'd like to see this closed as a procedural keep, without prejudice to revisiting the issue in a month or two if anyone still wishes too, if the undisclosed COI can be resolved William M. Connolley (talk) 07:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC) [Updated, 08:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)][reply]
    • Comment: Your comment fails to address any of the criteria in WP:ACADEMIC. Duchesne's most successful article to date has been cited by a mere 12 people. What is the evidence of his scholarly importance or significance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueonGray (talk • contribs) 10:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC) --BlueonGray (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's clear that BlueonGray added puffery like "one of the greatest thinkers of the twenty-first century" to emphasize the lack of notability of a scholar that just wrote his first book in 2011. I would not call that outright vandalism, and it was five months ago. It was reverted by another user with a different summary "highly unencyclopedic". I would AGF that BlueonGray did not know any better at the time, like how to nominate the article for deletion; he was advised only a few days ago at BLP/N. FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
regardless of the motive, BlueGrey is in violation of BLP for trying to ridicule on the subject of an article. The notability is in fact dubious, but defacing an article to make it absurdly ddubious as a protest is a violation of WP:POINT in any case, and when done with respect to a BLP, it passes the boundaries of disruption. If it were not several months ago, I would block for something like this. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Contributors to this debate may be interested to know that there is a long thread on related matters at AN/I.[12] Xxanthippe (talk) 11:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
They may also be interested in this possible WP:COI of the AfD starter: User talk:BlueonGray#WP:Battleground and the discussion on the WP:BLP Noticeboard. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears to be a bad faith nomination. Also he has written for the National post and the Vancouver Sun [13] Darkness Shines (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't create articles for people just because they write in newspapers. User:BlueonGray appears to be mainly concerned with the fact that the article on Duchesne is uncritical and paints a glowering picture of him. While initial edits by BoG on the article may have violated WP:BLP, his point is still valid since the article has no criticism in it and just looks like a WP:SOAPBOX of Duchesne's work and viewpoints.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 02:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • procedural keep. I fully agree with William M. Connolley. I have been keeping an eye on this discussion since the beginning, and it is a very disturbing mess. It is quite clear that BlueonGray made a bad faith nomination and it is quite clear that Gun Powder Ma is boostering up the reputation of Duchesne. Both clearly have a conflict of interest and their massive contribution to this discussion has been, in both cases, entirely negative. We should let this rest of a while and then it should be renominated, but only if both BlueonGray and Gun Powder Ma agree to not contribute to the discussion or are blocked from so doing. My view of the article - I think it was probably written too early before notability becomes clear. Letting it rest for a while may allow some indications of notability to appear or not, with both alternatives clarifying the issue. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Significant Impact on Scholarly Discipline?[edit]

The entry on Ricardo Duchesne states that he is a historical sociologist. His Academic discipline is therefore Sociology. The particular branch in which he works is Historical sociology. The first criteria in WP:PROF is "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed." There is no evidence that Duchense has made a significant impact on either the discipline of sociology or the sub-field of historical sociology. An example of a sociologist who has made a significant impact upon her discipline is Saskia Sassen, whose book The Global City has been cited over 4,000 times. An example of a historical sociologist who has made a significant impact in the sub-field of historical sociology is Charles Tilly, whose book Coercion, Capital, and European States has been cited 2,600 times. Duchense's most successful work to date is his essay, "Between sinocentrism and eurocentrism," which has been cited 12 times. I repeat: 12 times. Where is the evidence of Duchesne's significant impact upon his discipline? Debating people is not evidence of significant impact, since academia is all about debate.--BlueonGray (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, the comparison could not be more apples and oranges: Charles Tilly is a. forty years older and thus his work could accumulate forty years more of citations b. not a world historian anyway. The field of world history in our sense is barely ten years old, beginning in the late 1990s. These scholars are mostly fresh behind their ears and just don't have yet the time to accumulate the citation statistics the often cited, but dated works of Tilly and his generation has.
Therefore, you have to take into account the qualitative side: I have given enough names of notable scholars he has debated and enough titles of peer-reviewed journals where he has been published. You have still not named a single important scholar in the field who has not debated with Duchesne. As an aside, for a single-purpose account who has come to WP with a WP:COI as big as barn door, you are pretty assertive in telling us how we should evaluate the notability of articles here. The citation of the unrelated Tilly unfortunately removes all doubts that you don't even know who Duchesne is, what his work is and why he is an important scholar. All you have is the grudge against Duchesne because he published an article about the "racism industry" in Canada in some newspaper which you commented there aggressively upon, made you then register here and stalk the article since February (February, March). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria in WP:PROF asks for significant impact in a scholarly discipline, not a young sub-sub-field limited to a few scholars. There are countless young sub-sub-fields in which a very small group of scholars debate with one another. That does not meet any of the criteria in WP:PROF. Again, according to the entry for Ricardo Duchesne, which you created, Duchesne belongs to Historical sociology. Every academic belongs to a formal discipline. Within historical sociology, Duchesne's scholarly impact is barely detectable.
Also, Duchesne earned his PhD in 1994. According to you, he belongs to a field that was created "in the late 1990s". In which discipline was he working before his field was even created?--BlueonGray (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Field Too Small or Too Young?[edit]

Two different reasons have been given for Duchense's extremely low number of citations (12 max for a single piece; 35 total):

1) Duchesne's field is very small.
2) Duchesne's field is very young.

In regards to 1), it was pointed out that other historical sociologists have published scholarly works that have been cited many thousands of times, so 1) isn't a good reason. In regards to 2), Gun Powder made an important point:

The field of world history in our sense is barely ten years old, beginning in the late 1990s. These scholars are mostly fresh behind their ears and just don't have yet the time to accumulate the citation statistics the often cited...

This is a point on which we can all agree: Duchesne is a relatively new scholar and therefore has not yet had the time to accumulate the citation statistics to qualify as having had any significant impact upon his discipline (whichever that may be). Perhaps he will in the future. But for now, 35 in total just doesn't cut it. My suggestion, then, is to delete the entry for Duchesne until he accumulates a substantial number of citations. I think we can all agree that biographical entries should be created for demonstrated scholarly impact, not speculative projections.--BlueonGray (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree with Roscelese, Nsk92, and Xxanthippe. This not a small field, so the number of citations is inadequate for WP:PROF, and I don't see any exceptional contribution--the awfulness of multiculturalism is a horse beaten by many scholars recently, just see Eurabia. His 2011 book on multiculturalism (and his only one on any topic) is nothing special and as yet un-reviewed it seems. No GNG-type coverage was presented for this scholar either, and given that the article is fairly elaborate including which classes he took and with whom, I suspect all available sources have been exhausted. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. And please move the extensive threaded discussion with headings to the talk page. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:PROF. Beyond that, fails WP:GNG: If a work receives wide coverage, then an article about the work might be notable, but being notable for a work is not enough for an independent article. There is not enough independent coverage in the RS for an article on the author, but there might be for the book. I think the keep !voters are missing this very important point. Furthermore, his book is not a peer-reviewed book, so citations in academia are irrelevant. A look at the citations shows he is not being cited as an authority, but mostly to question him: notoriety of a promoter of a WP:FRINGE idea is not enough to establish notability. Also resumecruft per COI.--Cerejota (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, fringe? It is getting more weird by the day. The book has not been peer-reviewed because it takes usually one to two years, before such a thing happens. This is the printed world, not real time Wiki, dude. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cited By Nearly All Scholars?[edit]

I realize the case for keeping this article has all but collapsed, but I want to settle one claim that has been repeated above ad nauseum: the claim that "Duchesne has been cited by most authorities" in the field of World History. The sheer audacity of this claim would be bad enough if it weren't for the number of times it's been repeated. Thus far, we have seen no compelling evidence for this claim. However, Oxford University Press has just published the The Oxford Handbook of World History. According to the book's description, it "presents thirty-three essays by leading historians in their respective fields." It provides "the best guide to current thinking in one of the most dynamic fields of historical scholarship." Fortunately, the Table of Contents, which consists of no less than 31 chapters, is provided for everyone to see. (Notice that it includes Patrick Manning, whom Duchesne "debated" in some online forum.) Okay, now two things are immediately obvious. First, Duchesne is conspicuously missing this volume. If he's such an important scholar, one wonders why he wasn't included. Second, going by Gun Powder's own bibliography above, not one of the contributors to this volume have cited Duchesne's work. I repeat: not one. It is now certain that Ricardo Duchesne has not debated "most" of the authorities in his field, let alone been cited by nearly all of them. I don't see any argument left for keeping this article. Not sure what else to say, other than Delete. Cheers, BlueonGray (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

has he been cited by most authorities in the specific field he is working on? That's the real question. what I think notability depends on here is the reviews of his book. But it's a 2011 book, and , in his subject, reviews often take several years to appear. Incidentally, if we want to go by the GNG, we need to look at the citations: if two or more of them are published in Reliable sources, and have substantial discussion of his work, it meets the GNG. For those who think meeting the GNG over-rides anything, there need be no further necessary discussion. (I am, as you may guess,not one of them. WP:PROF is an area where GMNG often understates notability ; WP:AUTHOR is one where it grossly overstates it.). DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First sensible post I have read here and which displays some actual understanding of the topic. Yes, he has been cited by most authorities in the field. But the whole discussion here is heavily tilted towards counting socks, because no-one has an idea about what the field is. Unfortunately, those who do, I cannot contact because of canvassing. What do you exactly mean with "if two or more of them are published in Reliable sources, and have substantial discussion of his work, it meets the GNG"? This criteria has been met many times over by Duchesne, he has several works which were cited in at least two RS sources. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't found any significant coverage in the notations, and I tried. I mostly agree with what you are saying (except WP:AUTHOR, but Ill ask you directly), but this guy is not notable, but his book might be (haven't looked into it).--Cerejota (talk) 04:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you did not try. You did not even read this Afd. See above: Articles published directly in response to Duchesne work include. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
His book was launched by BRILL in Feb, yet I was unable to locate any real reviews for it. It may be too early, but I've not even seen it on "books received" lists that journals sometimes publish antedating reviews. There is a sort of adulatory post on it here, but some extremists endorsing it doesn't seem very promising. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia running out of pages?[edit]

A lot of energy is being wasted over whether to delete an adequate article about a modestly notable subject. The article is question is not slanderous or fawning. The text is clear, with adequate references to support it. The subject has a public presence.

If this and even less "important" articles are permitted to remain, Wikipedia will not run out of pages. Keeping all articles, even stubs, that meet Wikipedia's minimum standards causes no major harm to Wikipedia. On the contrary, I believe it benefits Wikipedia and the ever-expanding community of Wikipedia users.

Wikipedia becomes more important the more accurate information it contains. Hair-splitting about a subject's notability undermines the entire enterprise. Let's have more adequate articles on minor notables, not fewer. Posterity will thank you. --Calogera (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

You surely chose an odd article to make your first deletion discussion participation in you account's history. "Minor notables" are indeed a great problem for Wikipedia, just pass by WP:BLP/N. The lack of adequate independent coverage usually results in distorted biographies one way or the other. Wait until this guy says or does something controversial that hits WP:109PAPERS, and then the full force of "becomes a source of dismay to their original authors" hits home. In the mean time, puffing up someone bio with every embellished resume detail is fawning that discredits Wikipedia in the eyes of the public as a mere carrier of advertisement. See WP:EVERYTHING for more. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:EVERYTHING and WP:EFFORT. This argument here is invalid.--Cerejota (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, WP can not run out of articles unlike paper enclopyedias. Wikipedia is not paper. YE Pacific Hurricane 22:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What we need is input from users who have actually edited in the field which RD covers. Since the argument that the scholars who debated RD are leaders in their field has still not been addressed after five days, I have notified per WP:Canvass (users who are known for expertise in the field) the top ten registered users of the main article on the subject, that is Great Divergence. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Symposium of top authorities specifically held for Duchesne's article[edit]

At the bottom of the Google Scholar link you find an entry on Eurocentrism, Sinocentrism and World History: A Symposium (also here) which was specifically held for the purpose to discuss Duchesne's article "Between sinocentrism and eurocentrism: Debating Andre Gunder Frank's re-orient: Global economy in the Asian age", the one with the 12 citations. Participants are, inter alia, RB Wong and JA Goldstone, two of the other top world historians. This proves that RD complies to WP:ACADEMIC, namely that his research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that the "symposium" was held specifically for the subject's article. It's just another publication in a Marxist journal by the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Just out of curiosity, what makes them top world historians? Through what achievements did they earn their academic notability? Obviously, my next question would be: how do their achievements compare to those of Duchesne?--BlueonGray (talk) 01:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I thought you knew the field when the filed the Afd, so why do you ask? I hope you don't expect me to explain the scholarly merits of the individual scholars. Wong and Goldstone are leading figures of the California school which is in the opposite camp than Duchesne and they publish internationally in the Cambridge and Princeton University Press. They are all part of the debate in the field. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're holding Wong and Goldstone to one standard and Duchesne to another. The former have been cited hundreds of times each. Wong currently runs 5 research centers at UCLA. His book, China Transformed, was published by Cornell and received excellent reviews by top journals. Goldstone holds a prestigious professorship at George Mason. His book, Revolution and Rebellion in the Early Modern World, was published by University of California Press and similarly received excellent reviews and endorsements. Clearly, they didn't become top scholars by publishing a book review that was then heavily criticized.--BlueonGray (talk) 03:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know how you came up with "5 research centers", but anyway. The point is that both of them organized and attended a symposium to debate a single article of Duchesne is proof enough that they consider him a peer in the field. This strongly indicates that he is notable according to #1: The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 07:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
+ Citation by another important figure Tonia Andrade, from 2011
+ recent disputation with Ian Morris: RD's review and reply by Morris. Morris has published recently a widely received book, see e.g. Review of NY Times or Review by Guardian. This means Duchesne is integral part of the debate in his field and thus notable. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A public intellectual with a fairly high profile. All the kerfluffle above to me indicates just what we're trying to demonstrate here: that this is an individual that Wikipedia users will WANT to know about, whether one agrees with him or disagrees with him or just bumps into the name out in cyberspace. There's a big enough mass of commentary out there, pro, con, and neutral to indicate to me that this is indeed a public figure worthy of encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 02:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And we still have thousands of intellectuals at hundreds of universities with no wikipedia pages. the article on Ricardo, as currently written, looks like a glowering report designed to promote the individual, there is no criticism section, and it looks designed to promote Duchesne's views. There are many controversial figures who have articles on wiki, but they aren't platforms for their views to be promoted. See WP:SOAPBOX. DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I know people are tired of all this but it still needs mentioning that DÜNGÁNÈ, who has had created an attack page, holds a grudge against me. I can handle this, but that the AfD process is misused for personal motives, is another matter and sheds not a good light on WP. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 07:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Previous entanglements with users involved in creating an article for AfD does not mean that I get banned from voting or commenting on AfD that the user is involved in for life. I only encountered Ricardo Duchesne's article since GPM inserted his works and links to the article on multiple wikipedia pages that I read, like History of printing in East Asia, Printing Press, and Multiculturalism. I was monitoring the Duchesne article on this basis, not becaues I was looking for GPM's disuptes with other users. Again, if I held a grudge against GPM, I would have inserted myself into multiple disputes GPM was in, anyone can pull up a list of Afd's GPM has been involved in while I was editing wiki, and I was not involved in any until now. I am aware of his involvement in an Afd on ethnic macedonians in Greece, and there are probably more which I am not aware of. DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I have already given my vote, and made my points on this AfD. so I will retire from this and await the result.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is also clear that User:Gun Powder Ma is not being very forthcoming about something. S/he included three pieces of information about Duchesne that simply isn't publicly available:

  1. Duchesne's place of birth
  2. the year in which Duchesne was promoted to full professor
  3. Duchesne's membership on the doctoral selection committee for The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

The second two were included to build Duchesne's notability. User:Gun Powder Ma conspicuously refuses to say how s/he managed to obtain this information.--BlueonGray (talk) 04:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: BlueonGray has been blocked for being disruptive on "Ricardo Duchesne". Gun Powder Ma (talk) 07:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Press coverage[edit]

Back on topic. There is evidence that RD has made some impact even outside academia (point 7. of WP:Academics): he has published an article in January 2011 in the Canadian National Post, the leading center-conservative newspaper of Canada, with a daily circulation of 200,000. If he were not notable, why did the editorial staff of the National Post entrust him with a leading comment on a sensitive issue? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 07:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing a single article even in a leading newspaper is so far from any of our notability criteria that it is laughable. We don't need published works by Duchesne, what we need is published works about him. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that a single newspaper article establishes notability alone, but that is is one piece of mosaic which adds to his notability which I believe it does. As for published works exclusively on him, I already posted above "Articles published directly in response to Duchesne work include", but it is unfortunately symptomatic of the whole discussion that after six days still no-one has addressed my point that he has been debated by most of his peers (other than BlueOnGray, who, as people have finally realized, would negate everything which sheds a positive light on RD).
I tend to agree with William O'Connolley that a procedural keep may be the best solution with the option to review the matter later. You can't tell me this has been a fair and normal AfD. I have written quite a few bios in WP, some of which were on scholars who may be viewed according to the 'only the pure number of citations count' argumentation line less notable than RD. Yet no-one has ever come around questioning these entries. This whole AfD started from the wrong foot because of the bad faith of the nominator, that's my view anyway. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Main work[edit]

While it is true that Duchesne's main book The Uniqueness of Western Civilization has not yet been cited, this is small wonder considering that it was only launched in February this year. Most academic journals only appear biannual, so the first reviews will not appear until fall or winter.

However, even now the notability of his book can be still positively assessed from considering two aspects:

  1. the book is published by Brill, one the most renowned international publishing houses for science and particularly humanities, see here. Notably, it is not just a 'stand-alone publication', but part of Brill's long-running Studies in Critical Social Sciences series (vol. 28).
  2. WorldCat already lists around 60 university libraries which have the book on the shelf, over 40 alone from the USA. WorldCat, though, is far from complete with regard to Europe. The global impact of Duchesne's book is corrobated by a search in the catalogue Karlsruher Virtueller Katalog (KVK). This shows that an additional 14 Central European university libraries have also the book in store, even though it is in English.
    In other words, it is evident that Duchesne's book will have a major impact in the field even though it takes some more weeks before the first reviews arrive. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What most of these libraries have is a standing order for each one in the series. Brill is a first-rate publisher in the traditional humanities, particularly religion--I would classify it as a good second-level publisher otherwise. What these holdings indicate, unfortunately, is that relatively few libraries that do not subscribe to the series purchased it separately. (check the holdings for prev. vols in worldcat). The normal expected worldcat holdings for a book of this sort 2 years after publication would be about 100. Over 250, might indicate some degree of particular notability. (It would take a long essay to document this, but these are my estimates.) However, it will receive reviews--all serious academic books do. And, oddly, Wikipedia accepts that as meeting WP:N for books. The only reason we don't have the consequent 25,000 articles on them a year is that people here are mostly not particularly interested, and when there is strong defense of an article for a writer like this one , it usually indicates either some special controversial topic of unusual concern here, or a fanclub of some sort. Such are the inevitable vagaries of user-generated content, and I suppose we have to accept that. This is not a place for objective evaluations of academic book or their authors. DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting insight, I know you have professional knowledge. However, some 60 holdings after 7 months is not bad after your own estimations and I observed that every 2-3 days another university library has purchased it (today: 62), so there is some momentum. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Took a look into the catalogue today again: +1. Purchaser: University of Cambridge. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "Duchesne's book will have a major impact in the field even though it takes some more weeks before the first reviews arrive." Contrary to policy. Wikipedia does not have a crystal ball. Renominate the BLP when (if) notability is achieved. Presently sources are not sufficient for notability. Too early. If the subject really were notable his supporters would not have to argue so loud and so long. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    Xantippe, as I explained just above, the odds are about 10:1 that there will indeed be two or three reviews in a year or so. It's not a wild extrapolation, but only Wikipedia would consider that as indicating notability . DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant talk 00:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - My brief research does not turn up sufficient secondary sources that are independent enough to meet notability, such as WP:PROF. --Noleander (talk) 02:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- ignoring all the crap above, any normal evaluation of this person reasonably comes to the conclusion that he does not meet WP:PROF or any other standard: no large number of citations, no significant awards or prestigious positions, no news coverage. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Academics write articles, that's their job. If they have something to say that does not fit into 10 or 15 pages, they publish a book. I see nothing extraordinary yet to warrant inclusion into an encyclopedia. I do smell an attempt to boost book sales, as the article is not primarily about the author but about the book. --Pgallert (talk) 08:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually, the article exists since August 2010 and did not include the book until March 2011. With two computer technologists voting delete based on a similarly vacuous statement within less than hour, I'd rather think this smells of canvass and that the vote has finally become a total sham. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reject this accusation. --Pgallert (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --- I couldn't find evidence, and the article doesn't present any, that this person is notable under the accepted criteria for Academics Francis Bond (talk) 09:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See above. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A way forward[edit]

  • It is obvious that this discussion has generated much more heat than light. The best way forward would seem to me to be to close this discussion and start a new one with BlueonGray and Gun Powder Ma agreeing not to take part, leaving the discussion to neutral editors. If they won't agree to this then the discussion should take place with a formal topic ban on those editors. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100%.--BlueonGray (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I support this creative suggestion. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
This would be a reasonable way forward -- but I would like (first) to see an admin consider whether there is actually consensus for deletion here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree if one statement is allowed (with an appendix as extended contents). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. Your idea of "extended contents" is a big part of the problem. Content is for the article, or maybe its talk page. What should go here is only a brief discussion of its significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the spirit behind this proposal, as if this were a content dispute in an article's talk page, I would be inclined to agree. However, this is a deletion discussion: a closing admin needs to evaluate the arguments for deletion and for keep, including editor behavior, and make a decision. This decision can be appealed to WP:DRV. We cannot allow AfDs to be hijacked by editors who do not know how to behave or have decorum and self-restraint to realize what AfD is about: if we accept this proposal, what is to keep editors in the future from using this to create wall of text disruption of deletion discussions, with the aim of disrupting the discussion to give the impression of no consensus? Specially when they are not going their way? This solution, while in good faith and certainly seeking to move forward, has a negative unintended consequence. We cannot go around the real problem here, which is the inability of editors to behave with decorum. As such, I strongly oppose it: let the discussion flow, and let the chips fall where they might fall. I trust the admins to make the hard choices and evaluate the discussion on its merits and ignore and pay attention to the irrelevant and relevant parts of the discussion .--Cerejota (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A brief discussion which after two weeks still did not manage to address the main point to establish his notability, that is whether RD has been debated by all of the main authorities in the field, as I argue, or not. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A good point. Counting the votes, I find 13 votes for delete and 6 for keep including nominator and all partisans. On this basis (but remembering that an AfD is NOT A VOTE) the consensus already seems to be fairly clear. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I suggest that a new neutral drama-free discussing should start, and this one to be closed. YE Pacific Hurricane 02:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Facepalm--Cerejota (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I count 12 deletes, 5 keeps and two procedural keeps. Unfortunately, this sloppiness has been characteristic of the whole debate. I can even understand this because the discussion has been such a mess. Therefore, a new discussion with one statement each may be a viable option. Still, I think a procedural keep would be better as even a new Afd would not remove the birth mark of being a bad faith nomination which all people here fully well know it has been. There should be some time in between, not in the least to allow sufficient reception of his book, which, I presume, will anyway show that he is actively enough debated in his field to make all of this discussion obsolete. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(reword)We should allow a five day break in between AFD's IMO.YE Pacific Hurricane 22:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete (if new users are supposed to vote.) I think I understand the keep and delete reasoning, and I agree with Noleander that secondary sources (discussing Duchesne himself in depth) are needed, but lacking. Auguria (talk) 02:16, 9 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ricardo_Duchesne&oldid=1138299654"