Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Taylor (academic)

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 no consensus. Sandstein 06:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Taylor (academic)[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. No significant independent coverage found of the subject or his books. Michig (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject publishes under the name S Taylor. There are several such on GS but I can't find much for this one. I will be happy to change my vote if the article's proponents can cite further evidence. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Largely unreferenced BLP. He's not in Who's Who or Debrett's People of Today. He is a "senior lecturer" with the "organisational studies" section [1], so he isn't a professor, or even an assistant professor. It does look like that he simply isn't notable enough, at least not yet. However he might qualify for WP:AUTHOR if reliable reviews of his books can be found. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note, "senior lecturer" in the UK = professor in the US. Don't attempt UK academic noms if you don't understand the different systems.

Thanks, I am actually familiar with these systems Johnbod (talk · contribs), and since this was a British article, I think it's appropriate to use British terminology. Just throwing that idea out there. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If so, why say "He is a "senior lecturer" with the "organisational studies" section [2], so he isn't a professor, or even an assistant professor", when he very much is in US terms. There are very few "assistant professors" in the UK, and at best the comment will mislead Americans. Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly he isn't a professor then. Great. Thanks for your agreement. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In local terms he is. Please don't be misleading to others. Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for clarifying that the United Kingdom (population 63 million) is only of "local" significance, and now through this you have indeed unveiled my intentions - I like deliberately misleading people as I find it amusing to regurgitate plain facts taken from an academic's unversity's website without adding the necessary qualifications to delierately confuse stupid readers who would be mislead by the fact that in one "local" country, we have a system that is slightly different to the one used in the greatest nation on earth. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, mainly on the impressive number of editions his no doubt incredibly tedious textbooks have racked up with major publishers. Johnbod (talk) 04:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite familiar with UK academia thanks very much, and a very large proportion of senior lecturers are not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. --Michig (talk) 07:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But then few have books on their 8th edn with Prentice-Hall and 3rd with Oxford UP, etc. And anyone attempting to get the standard professional qualification for HR people will have to read an awful lot of Hall. Johnbod (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm somewhat sympathetic to Johnbod's arguments about the ubiquity of his books, but I can find almost nothing about this person or his books, except on the websites of people who employ or publish him. Even if we had sources saying his books were widely used, that might help him pass WP:SCHOLAR #1. But I don't think he meets any of the requirements of WP:SCHOLAR or WP:AUTHOR (and all his books that were brought out by commercial publishers were co-written, one with 3 other people). --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of what seem to be standard textbooks, he meets WP:SCHOLAR #4 rather than #1. Big fat textbooks tend to be co-authored, & he has a finger in several pies here. Johnbod (talk) 15:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- He seems to be the author of serious undergraduate or postgraduate text books. The fact that he has co-authors does not change that. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as textbook author under WP:PROF, tho I think he'd meet WP:AUTHOR . it may be hard finding the necessary reviews. DGG ( talk ) 07:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Johnbod and DGG. Generally, we have kept authors of textbooks whose work has gone onto multiple editions. After a while, many textbooks start to aquire co-authors who will eventually take over most of the writing. FWIW, some textbooks are actually edited by their reviewers. Bearian (talk) 22:18, 2 December 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.