Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Stenhouse

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

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

I'll gladly withdraw this nomination is people more in the know believe that he is a significant academic, but I can't find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Yes, he's written some books and papers, but is it enough to satisfy WP:ACADEMIC? Withdrawn. Writing a book apparently is now enough. The-Pope (talk) 12:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 12:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. He has multiple books published by mainline publishers (eg Allen & Unwin), which ordinarily results in sufficient coverage to satisfy the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

:*But have you actually found any references that actually satisfy the GNG? The-Pope (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. No need to appeal to GNG. His books are widely held, which is conventionally taken as demonstrative of impact and therefore satisfying WP:PROF #1, e.g. Active Philosophy book [http://www.worldcat.org/title/active-philosophy-in-education-and-science-paradigms-and-language-games/oclc/10799654&referer=brief_results held] by >200 institutions and Evolution of Intelligence book [http://www.worldcat.org/title/evolution-of-intelligence-a-general-theory-and-some-of-its-implications/oclc/1057540&referer=brief_results held] by >600 institutions. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC).
• Keep. Has well-cited books on Google Scholar. Did the nominator look there? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC).

:*Yes, but WP:ACADEMIC says GS includes sources that are not peer-reviewed, such as academic web sites and other self-published sources. Thus, the number of citations found there can sometimes be significantly more than the number of actual citations from truly reliable scholarly material. In essence, it is a rough guide only. So I repeat... are there anything to prove that he has made a significant contribution to his field, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources? Maybe it's the webless-systematic bias of the era in which he was most active, but I'm seeing a lot of "he should have" or "most likely to", rather than actual proof. I should also note that the creator and main contributor to the article is likely a family member, as he shares the same surname, so WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI also come into play. Really my main aim and the only reason I found the article, is to find a reference suitable so that I can remove the {{tl|BLP unsourced}} tag? Does one exist that isn't self-published or non-independent?The-Pope (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

:::For heaven's sake, nominator. None of the books are self-published and all of the library holdings are independent sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC).

::::Settle down. I am trying to clear out Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Unreferenced BLPs. To do that I need to reference or delete every article on that list. I didn't think that just writing some books or article is enough of a reference to remove {{tl|BLP unsourced}}. Apparantly now it is, so I'll go ahead and remove it and then happily go back to referencing sportspeople where significant coverage is required, and leave the academics to others. The-Pope (talk) 02:09, 26 March 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.