Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saul Newman

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 of the debate was no consensus. bainer (talk) 08:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saul Newman[edit]

This guy is not a particularly notable academic. He has a large number of publications for someone so early in his career (he only got his PhD about 5 years ago), but no particularly notable publications or ideas. He clearly fails WP:PROFTEST and WP:BIO mge kelly 05:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Googling the name BTW will give a lot of distortion, as there are two academics called Saul Newman. mge kelly 05:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Bwithh 05:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly. I don't know where you get the idea he is not notable. Saying that he has "no particularly notable ideas" seems like a strange point of contention, when he's the architect behind a political theory that has drawn many academics, both in support and in criticism. Sarge Baldy 05:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence? The ideas you reference in the article (for Sarge Baldy is its author) do not seem to be particularly original, especially insofar as they resemble Todd May's stuff about poststructuralist anarchism. May, BTW, despite being much more notable doesn't have an article. Have you actually read WP:PROFTEST or WP:BIO? mge kelly 05:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He coined the term "postanarchism", which seems like a pretty good start. I'd see him as passing BIO as a published author whose work has been reviewed, and "The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea" for originating the term postanarchism and being one of the most notable scholars in the field. I wouldn't say that Todd May doesn't deserve an article as well. Sarge Baldy 05:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are some ambiguities in BIO when it comes to academics, which is why PROFTEST has been proposed. Even if Newman invented the word 'postanarchism' (which I doubt but am not going to try to disprove) the idea in question about poststructuralist anarchism has was clearly invented by Todd May, whose book on the subject came out while Newman was still a grad student and hadn't published anything. mge kelly 06:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about Todd May to say what of his theoretical insights are "new", but I'd doubt it's all simple rehash. I definitely think he has enough weight in his field to merit inclusion. For instance, From Bakunin to Lacan gets 10 citations on Google Scholar [1] [2] Additionally, one writer wrote a peer reviewed journal article specifically in response to him [3], which also indicates a fair degree of notability in the field. Anyway, PROFTEST isn't even an accepted guideline, so it's hardly a good tool in determining deletion. Sarge Baldy 06:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I cited BIO as well as PROFTEST. The thing is if you pick up lines like "books receiving reviews" from BIO out of context, it makes every academic elligible for a page. Having an article about you published in a peer-reviewed journal is also small fry for an academic - certainly if the journal in question is Postmodern Culture! If it were in Economy and Society, I'd back down! From Googling, I think this guy gets more attention from the anarchist community than the scholarly community, and he's manifestly not of a level within the anarchist community to merit a Wikipedia article, so basically the guy's non-notable. mge kelly 06:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Postmodern Culture is probably the most well known periodical related to postmodernism. Which is to say, he has a degree of notability among people in that field, which is clearly a much smaller field than that covered by Economy and Society. And he is fairly well known (if not entirely popular or revered) amongst anarchists, which is only to say his notability shouldn't be determined solely by his achievements as an academic. Sarge Baldy 07:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly. The publication of work in an internet journal like PC does not mean that the subject of it is notable. mge kelly 07:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. He does not meet WP:PROFTEST --Alphachimp ^talk 06:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At first, I was going to vote keep as it seemed that he had been published in some notable journals. However, that seems to be the other Saul Newman. He does not get any returns from an Australia New Zealand database which indicates that he hasn't had much impact on the wider community. Capitalistroadster 08:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 08:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.--Peta 11:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to have been published many times. Check out this list. —M e ts501^talk 02:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noted the volume of his publications in my nomination. I don't think any quantity of publications = notability. Young academics today have to publish like crazy. Once notable academics would maybe publish a couple of things their whole career, but today you wouldn't get a job if you were that taciturn. Notability must be judged in terms of impact in field, not volume of pubs. mge kelly 03:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Capitalistroadster.--cj | talk 07:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep, has written at least two books for non-vanity presses, and book chapters for at least one other. His multiple journal submissions more than meet the cut, and i'm rather disturbed by the delete votes on this one. There's certainly no legitimate rationale at this stage. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 18:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although, as I say, Newman is unusual in publishing so much so early in his career, publishing two books on reputable presses is par for the course for any contemporary academic within the first decade or so of activity. If this allows for inclusion, most academics will get articles. The reason I think that this shouldn't lead to academics is that academic book publications are typically bought mainly by university libraries and have readerships barely in triple figures, hence do not indicate true notability. mge kelly 16:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, definitely, not only because of Newman's academic reputation, but mainly because of the originality of the theoretical position he is developing and which should be described in more detail. Newman (2005) is a representative of individualist post-anarchism while Todd May (1994), who should also have an article, stands for collectivist post-anarchism. --Nescio* 21:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@Mgekelly: Looking at the history of the article I find that it has been a stub of 5-6 lines for about half a year. Just after that I started to improve it to an article (a paragraph sketching Newman's position; book list; link) you nominated it for deletion. I wonder why? The reasons you gave don't convince me. --Nescio* 20:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd never seen it before, which is why I nominated it when I did. I have had no dealings with the guy and no axe to grind, if that's what you're getting at. mge kelly 06:06, 1 June 2006 (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.