Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Patrick Burke

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 looks like there just isn't enough in the way of sources. Sandstein 09:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Patrick Burke[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable academic. Provided sources do not demonstrate notability per WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NACADEMIC. The subject is the founder and president of The Wynnewood Institute, which doesn't appear to be a notable enough research institution to satisfy WP:NACADEMIC. Internet searches for more coverage about the subject in reliable sources were unsuccessful, and specifically searching Google Scholar and ResearchGate for both the subject and their works did not leave me with the impression that the subject is widely cited or otherwise had a significant impact in their field. That having been said, search engines can be finicky about finding evidence of citations, so I would welcome any evidence that demonstrates that Burke has had a wide impact or otherwise meets WP:NACADEMIC. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will make a case for stronger claim to notability. To start: 1. There are more citations in academic journals as well as reviews of his books. How many citations or mentions of the subject's work would be considered notable? Should I provide the citations here or elsewhere? 2. He wrote a religious text titled The Major Religions that is widely held/used. Does that factor in to the criteria at all? *Please note that I created the article as a work for hire. Thank you.--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Burke, T. P. (2004). The major religions: An introduction with texts. Wiley-Blackwell. This textbook would seem to be a compilation more than an original work. Google scholar says it has been cited 79 times, but this could be for the "texts" rather than for Burke's work?? MargaretRDonald (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can make edits to the article and then just summarize your additions here. As far as what "counts", I'd read through WP:NACADEMIC–the textbook is certainly a point in Burke's favor, although I wasn't able to quickly find any sources that verified that it is particularly widely used. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It is held at over 500 libraries, and meant for textbook use, though I do not know where to retrieve stats on assigned reading.--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the author of the article, User:DiamondRemley39, states that he was hired to produce the article, he should indicate who hired him. MargaretRDonald (talk) 06:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I interpreted something I'd read to mean that disclosing I am paid to edit on my userpage suffices. Apparently not, and I apologize for not following the procedure properly. I was hired by a company, Syndicate Strategies, to write the article.--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, (for the indication that an advertising company is paying you. I didn't manage to read your userpage at the time) If this article is not to be deleted: some ISBNs for the books or links to show that they actually exist would be good; some articles and some evidence that people are using the his work; The sentence about his importance in propagation of ideas is not supported (organising a conference does not mean that someone was/is instrumental in propagating ideas); many lecturers write textbooks, so some evidence that his is widely used. As yet, there is no evidence that Burke is noteworthy. MargaretRDonald (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC) (I see his textbook is used as a reference at least in some 448 libraries). MargaretRDonald (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. OCLC links to most of his books were included, and I have now added the ISBNs (for those that were published after 1970).--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A useful source to flesh out the article & support a keep argument might be OCLC World cat: Burke, T. Patrick (Thomas Patrick) 1934- MargaretRDonald (talk) 08:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Apart from Burke/s publications, this article is based on a single source (The Wynnewood Institute webpage). If the man was/is influential surely his work is discussed in newspapers. Equally, he was professor of religion at Temple college for nearly 30 years,so if he was "influential" he surely had some students who were both influenced by him and who are influential. Who are they and what did they write about? You have told us he was influential, show us! (Without considerable improvement with secondary referencing I think the article should be deleted, being based on insufficient sources). So far it is a simple paraphrase of the material on the The Wynnewood Institute webpages, and hence, essentially, advertising. MargaretRDonald (talk) 03:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will gather more reviews of his works and links to articles he has written. I hadn't realized that reviews of his books in academic journals would be valuable to the article. Is there a deadline?DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 11:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ He appears to be sufficiently notable. See e.g., his library IDs in the authority control, as well as his books (frequently written with others). MargaretRDonald (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC) one iVote per editor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MargaretRDonald: could you please clarify your !vote? You've bolded a !vote in three different comments, and it looks like another editor has redacted your latest, so it would be helpful to strike the !votes you don't endorse, and clarify your current position. Bakazaka (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My previous comments were not votes, but (conflicting) arguments for both keep and delete. He is certainly not an influential thinker, but I think his widespread availablity in libraries does make him notable.MargaretRDonald (talk) 00:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified my earlier "votes" by unbolding the keep and delete in the earlier comments, rather than striking out. (Thye were not votes and therefore did not need to be struck out) MargaretRDonald (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many, actually, most academics fail guidelines like WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR because, as you say, "not an influential thinker." The only way to pass those guidelines or WP:GNG is to have multiple SECONDARY and TERTIRAY WP:RS that discuss your career, your ideas, your books and/or your impact. Many academics have useful, honourable careers without being notable. The mere fact of publishing books and articles does not confer notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote.Delete. MargaretRDonald (talk) 03:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He certainly sounds like he ought to be notable - books, Institute, but I can't source him. No problem finding others with this name (Ensign Thomas Patrick Burke, of the 16th Regiment) a Napoleonic era soldier ; and the Thomas Patrick Burke who committed a notorious kidnap/murder (O'CONNELL KIDNAPPER DIES: Washington Reveals Passing of Burke in Pennsylvania Prison, New York Times (1923-Current file); New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]21 Dec 1937: 48.). I considered a merge to The Wynnewood Institute, but it doesn't look notable either. ( I did find a handful of events listings for lectures back in2007.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that two editors have been hard at work tightening the page, I took another look. the page still lacks so much as a single reliable, secondary source. And yet he had a long university teaching career and wrote books. I took his name to JSTOR and found a very respectful review of a recent book in a respectable journal (Shuster, Arthur, and Thomas Patrick Burke. “The Journal of Politics.” The Journal of Politics, vol. 74, no. 1, 2012, p. e9. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1017/s0022381611001472.) it is, however, the sole book review I was able to locate. One book review ≠ notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after having similar search results to E.M.Gregory. There is no question that the subject wrote and edited things. But notability on Wikipedia is not based on output. Notability here is based on significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources (see WP:GNG), which this subject does not have, or on passing a more specific notability guideline like WP:PROF, which this subject most assuredly does not. Bakazaka (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2018 (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.