Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Bartholomew

:{{la|Craig Bartholomew}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Craig_Bartholomew Stats])

:({{Find sources|Craig Bartholomew}})

Despite the WP:PEACOCK within the page, doesn't seem to fit WP:ACADEMIC Although I found publications he authored, many are from obscure presses (most from the college he teaches at) and I see little coverage of his work by others. Bottom line: When I applied the "Average Professor Test" to Bartholomew, he failed. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 15. Snotbot  t • c »  23:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment The subject is Craig Bartholomew Is he a notable academic? I can't say. The wikipedia page cites many articles that he has published. A google search I did turned up a few hits from amazon books that he's written. Other reviewers may know the answer. --Artene50 (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. I have a feeling this nomination has been made in reaction to the peacockery present in the article, and as part of a cleanup of Redeemer University College related articles. The thing is, Bartholomew clearly passes Criterion 5 of WP:PROF, in that he holds a named chair at a "major institution of higher education". Now, this word "major" has been inserted to eliminate tiny and/or unaccredited institutions - but RUC is neither. Bartholomew is a significant figure in the field of Biblical hermeneutics. His h-index is 9, which may seem quite low, but theologians don't tend to rate as highly on that scale. StAnselm (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
• :Redeemer University College has "50 full time" staff members. That's not "mayor" for an academic institution. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

:::What makes you say that? StAnselm (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

::::Uh, maybe he read this: [http://www.redeemer.ca/Media/Website%20Resources/pdf/about/Redeemer-At-A-Glance.pdf]

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep as per StAnselm (I hope this isn't considered disruptive). Cites are reasonably good for theology to give a pass of WP:Prof#C1. Publication list is puffy and could be removed. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC).
• Comment I nominated the article because the bulk of the publications are WP:BLPSPS This was made clear in a previous edit by JFHjr and reverted back without reason. This was strange, as he had a point. An Amazon search isn't enough to establish notability. The peacockery just makes the article look more like a public relations statement, really, and didn't impact my decision to think it ought to be deleted. No, the long list of vanity press sources made it all suspect, and him failing the Professor Test are the reasons, WP:RESUME just makes it messy.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete due to the paucity of non-vanity press and non-self-published sources. Also note that in the General notes section of WP:PROF, it's mentioned as a guideline and not a policy; the exception it gives is the other way around, but certainly the reverse can also be true. Happening to meet one criterion does help, but ultimately it depends on the number of reliable sources on the subject; I'm not seeing enough to support an article, so I'm voting delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

::I'm surprised at the reference to vanity press publications. Which ones are you referring to? Surely you'd admit that he's [http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Craig+Bartholomew%22 written a lot] that's not self-published. StAnselm (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as failing WP:GNG by not having coverage in independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

::There is plenty of coverage by independent third party sources: see the citations in GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC).

:::Really? Could you give some exmpales? The first two pages of results on the google scholar link above contain no biographical coverage that I can see. (I'm not in the USA and sometimes see different google hits). Stuartyeates (talk) 04:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

::::Citations invariably never contain biographical coverage. See WP:Prof for policy on these matters. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC).

::::Yes, for academics, the concept of notability is re-imagined as the extent to which the subject's views are assessed and promulgated. StAnselm (talk) 04:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 01:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. The situation in regard to Redeemer University College may be something that sometimes has occurred with low-ranking institutions. A naive college administrator decides that the institution's profile would be improved if all its academic staff were to have entries in Wikipedia and forces them to write such. This often leads to disappointment when the BLPs are deleted. However, I suggest that this BLP is one that qualifies for retention. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC).
• Comment. Not only does he pass WP:PROF #5, and probably #1, but he also probably passes #8, as a former editor of the Journal of Theological Interpretation. Now, JTI was not "well established" at the time (he was the inaugural editor), but it comes from a reputable publisher, and has a significant worldcat presence. Remember: Bartholomew's field is particularly biblical hermeneutics, rather than the wider field of biblical studies. In this narrower field (which the journal represents), he is one of the foremost scholars. StAnselm (talk) 04:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep: this is a response from an extremely limited perspective, but I've just [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ephesus&diff=502783372&oldid=502778237 cited] one of his books (from Ashgate, a mainstream academic publisher) at Ephesus. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment StAnselm, it is not open and shut. In terms of WP:PROF read that in the General notes section of WP:PROF, it's mentioned as a guideline and not a policy; the exception it gives is the other way around, but certainly the reverse can also be true. Happening to meet one criterion does help, but ultimately it depends on the number of reliable sources on the subject. He doesn't fulfill this, doesn't pass the professor test. Also, in terms of sources, you should know the answer to your question, seeing how you've started/edited the bulk of the "reputable publishers" he has been featured in. It suggests WP:COI, either that you work at RC or are affiliated with it or him. Either way, the bottom line is that yes, to answer your question, he has written a lot. But no, that in itself does not make him notable. Certainly not enough to fulfill WP:PROF Listing every publication he has to his name doesn't make a difference. Some of the sources are from presses that in themselves are questioned to be notable. Others are obscure enough not to have any secondary coverage. Moreover, for someone who has so much out there, you'd think we'd be able to find many reliable, independent sources, and there aren't any to be found. Lastly, yes, he does have a title and that is great but as other editors have pointed out per language in WP:PROF"Major institutions, for these purposes, are those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity. Named chairs at other institutions are not necessarily sufficient to establish notability." RC is not a major institution.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

::I don't know what you're saying. You are suggesting a COI - what, because I started the Journal of Theological Interpretation article? That seems utterly ridiculous. What's going on here? StAnselm (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

:::What Jimsteele9999 seems to be alluding to is that you've edited a number of articles in this area. Since you have [https://toolserver.org/~tparis/pcount/index.php?name=StAnselm&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia 56k edits] and an apparent interest in Christianity articles I personlly don't find that surprising. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

::::I'm amazed that an interest in the area is perceived as a conflict of interest. It's a serious accusation, and a very poor argument to use in an AfD. StAnselm (talk) 07:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

:::::The larger issue is the question of RC as a "major institution". Since your rationale for this guy being notable is because he teaches at school X, and to fulfill the expectation of Y he must teach at X which is a major institution. As pointed out by Stuartyeates and reiterated by me, Redeemer College--with only 50 full time staff members--is not major. Only 50 full time staff members (and this may not even be all faulty) is not a major institution. The lack of reviews, awards and other independent coverage of his scholarship just reinforce a delete.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

::::::No, that's not the larger issue. Because even if he fails #5, he still passes #1 and #8 of WP:PROF. And the way it works is that he only needs to pass one of those in order to be notable. The problem is, you have grossly confused reputable academic journals with vanity press publications. StAnselm (talk) 21:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

::::::I should also point out, to refute Jimsteele9999's point above, that WP:PROF says "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable" (emphasis original). StAnselm (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: There seems to be a significant misunderstanding here about the nature of WP:PROF and its relationship with WP:GNG. WP:GNG is a "fall back position" - subjects who fails WP:PROF may still be notable under WP:GNG. Of course WP:PROF is a "guideline" rather than a policy, but then so is WP:GNG. Furthermore, it says that "for the routine uncontroversial details of a career, official institutional and professional sources are accepted as sourcing for those details," so the issue of third-party coverage is not a problem here. StAnselm (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

::You seem to claim that the subject meets #1, #5 and #8 of WP:PROF. The evidence in the article does not appear to directly support this with independent refs (and evidence of notability must be supported by independent refs, even when routine detials are not). 1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. The only apparently independent working link appears to be [http://www.allofliferedeemed.co.uk/bartholomew.htm] which says nothing of his impact. 5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon). As discussed above, a recently founded college with 50 fulltime staff does not normally qualify as 'a major institution of higher education and research.' 8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area. The article claims he was editor of Journal of Theological Interpretation, which does not appear (from it's article, which I've just tagged as having zero independent refs) to be a 'major well-established academic journal.' Maybe there are sources out there that I'm not aware of or can't access (I'll admit to knowing nothing about this field, I didn't trawl through archive.org and I'm in a country that regularly missing content in google for copyright reasons), but the notability does not appear to be evident in the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

:::The evidence of notability can be discerned from Google Scholar citations - that's how WP:PROF works. In other words, we assess how much impact his work has made in his particular field. I qualified my claim about the Journal of Theological Interpretation with the caveat that it was a new journal when Bartholomew edited it. But a reputable publisher wanted to start a new journal covering a specific, burgeoning field - and they asked Bartholomew to edit it. That indicates that he is a major player in his field - which covers both the letter and the spirit of WP:PROF. StAnselm (talk) 02:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

::::Google scholar hits is all it takes? According to [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Craig+Bartholomew%22 this] he has cites of 33, 32, 26 and 21. According to [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Stuart+Yeates%22 this] I have cites of 66, 53, 33, and 33. And to be clear, I'm not, and never have been, an academic. Am I notable under WP:PROF? Never. So clearly google scholar hits are not all it takes... Stuartyeates (talk) 05:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

:::::It is cites, not hits, that count for WP:Prof#C1 and, as discussed on its talk page, citation rates for theology are much lower than for most other subjects. For computer science they are particularly high so you are correct in presuming that you would not rate under WP:Prof#1 in that area, although you might if you had worked in theology. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC).

::::::*Comment So now that we've determined Redeemer College is not a major institution, and thus the fact Bartholomew teaches there, has a title there, doesn't fulfill WP:PROF, St. Anselm is testifying that since he was an editor of a journal for one year, he fulfills WP:PROF. First of all, if--and I mean if--Jounral of Theologial Interpretation is a "major and well-established journal" than that would matter. But we've found zero independent refs. Strange for a "major journal" (theology or otherwise). Stuartyeates demonstrates that hits (which in Google Scholar appear as citations) are not enough. For someone who, as St. Anselm attests, is "a major player" wouldn't we see more in the way of independent sources? He fails #1, #5 and #8 per Stuartyeates demonstrations, rationale and thus ought to be deleted.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

::::::::No, we haven't established that Redeemer College is not a major institution - that's only ever been asserted. StAnselm (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep -- Looking at every faculty bio at [http://www.redeemer.ca/academics/faculty/fullTime.aspx], I find that he's the only member of the full-time faculty with a named chair. This eliminates for me any concerns that named chairs at RC might be less prestigious or more common than at other small schools. StAnselm and others' research suggests strongly that he may qualify not just under PROF's C5 but also under C1 and C8. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 06:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

: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.