Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Kershaw

: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 keep. These keeps are weak, but there is no consensus to delete. (non-admin closure) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

=[[David Kershaw]]=

:{{la|David Kershaw}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|David Kershaw}})

Article makes no assertion of notability per WP:PROF sections 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 or 9. This person does not hold a named chair, is not a head of a school, does not appear to be more influential than the average academic, claims no notable prizes or awards or hono(u)rs. Does not appear to have notable achivements outside academe, according to a Google test (this is not the ad man or actor or Vancouver resident). Wtshymanski (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

:Keep. This is notable. First, WP:PROF is guidelines, not binding. And second, the page seems to fulfill 1, 2, and 4, seen by citations of his work and the prize cited here. I put him up because there are articles on this website referring to his work. Cheers, Wik idea 17:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

:Weak keep: I would argue that he at least fulfills WP:PROF based on criteria 1 considering that he has written a textbook about his subject. He may also pass 2 as well, but I'm not sure if the prize he won is "highly prestigious" or not as I am not in that field. Topher385 (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

~~Comment~~ Weak Keep. On searching GS for "David Kershaw law" I found an h-index of 5, which is not enough for WP:Prof#C1. A better search might improve this. Just publishing a book is not enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC).

::You'll have to speak in English instead of Algebra. Does that index mean that if someone has written fewer articles than the number of times they've been cited, that's good enough? I don't know if I've got that right, but in any case it seems to me to be a pretty lousy test for anything much, and if you're looking on Google Scholar (which isn't determinative of anything: it's bias toward US publications), then he seems to have been cited quite a few times. Btw, a major textbook is notable in itself. Wik idea 23:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

:::It is helpful to study WP:Prof before contributing to academic AfD debates. Immemorial policy is that publishing stuff does not make a person notable. It is necessary to show that the stuff has been sufficiently noted by others. In this case I am open to argument. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC).

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

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 07:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Weak keep. I don't think the award is enough by itself, but it at least gives me an impression that his paper on Enron has had some impact despite the low cite count in Google scholar. And his textbook "Company Law in Context" does seem to be widely used in British law/business schools. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:48, 21 August 2011 (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.