Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James R. Barker

: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. JohnCD (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

=[[James R. Barker]]=

:{{la|James R. Barker}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James R. Barker}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|James R. Barker}})

Appears to fail WP:ACADEMIC. Unreferenced. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 06:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Xxanthippe (talk) 08:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. J R Barker is a not uncommon name but on GS I find cites in management science of 1087, 114, 89, 43... which is a good start. Could the nominator comment if these are for the correct person? If so there are plenty of references. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC).
  • Delete Nothing whatsoever to suggest he is any more than a very ordinary run-of-the-mill academic. The fact that a few citations can be located proves nothing: all academics write papers, and papers get cited by other academics, even if they are of minor significance. I have found no evidence that Barker has received particularly significant attention, and the article does not even suggest that he has. Part of the original text of the article was written in the first person. The article is essentially a very short C.V. or resume. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. WP policy regarding notability of academics, researchers and scholars is determined by WP:Prof. Attempts to change this policy should be made on the talk page of that article, not here. Whatever the outcome of this AfD debate, the nominator seems to have done an inadequate job. He finds no references, whereas the first person to wander by and click a link finds 1000 plus (a few citations indeed!). Xxanthippe (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC).

:*Comment Because you don't like the way that the nominator handled this it does not follow that they are trying to change policy, and I wonder if you really thought that was the case. If you have found 2000 reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject (or even one) then it will be very helpful if you can give us links to some of them: simply stating that they exist is not helpful. I have spent a considerable amount of time searching, and have not found them. Also I wonder whether "the first person to wander by and click a link" implies that all that was done was clicking on a link: if so that is not enough. You need to sort the wheat from the chaff, e.g. the mentions of this James Barker from other James Barkers, the passing mentions from the significant coverage, the multiple mirrors of an original article from those originals, the reliable sources from the unreliable ones, etc. You may of course have done this, but it is not clear from the above comment that you have. If you have then please, as I have suggested above, give us links to the good sources you have found. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep. Any academic who has written [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=16642452546599499166&hl=en&as_sdt=2000 a paper that has attracted over a thousand citations] pretty clearly passes WP:PROF criterion 1. I don't understand how these can be described as "a few" citations. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per Phil Bridger he appears to pass WP:PROF #1, but also I think he passes #8 as editor of Management Communication Quarterly [http://www.sagepub.com/journalsProdEditBoards.nav?prodId=Journal200821]. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Question. The editor of the journal is affiliated with Dalhousie university whereas the subject of this nomination appears to be from New Zealand. Are they the same? If they are different this will reflect on citations. The article is poorly written and needs improvement at least. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC).
  • Barker's [http://mngt.waikato.ac.nz/staff%20List/staffhome.asp?user=jbarker staff profile] at Waikato lists him as the editor for MCQ (that's how I found out about it) so I'm quite sure they're the same. I tried searching Dalhousie for his name but found very little there. I don't know why MCQ lists his affiliation as Dalhousie; maybe it's a mistake, or maybe he was there at some point and moved? —David Eppstein (talk) 03:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think that settles the matter. Passes WP:Prof #1 and #8. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC).
  • Keep' as editor of major journal. The material needs to be added to the article. DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 6 April 2010 (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.