Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James T. Houk

: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. Secret account 02:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

=[[James T. Houk]]=

:{{la|James T. Houk}} – (View AfD)(View log)

:({{findsources|James T. Houk}})

This associate professor at Our Lady of the Lake College in Baton Rouge has an h-index in the single digits, and has written one book. This seems to me to not be enough to pass WP:PROF. Abductive (reasoning) 22:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep for failure to present reasoned argument for deletion. What is the single digit h-index? Link to it, please. What is the usual h-index for a notable anthropologist? What is your source for this? What is the notability of his book? And your source for this? --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete not meeting WP:PROF is a reasoned argument and clearly the case here.--SabreBD (talk) 01:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Not sufficient if he has written a book, also. Is he notable as the author of the book? There is no "fails one fails them all." It's overall. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Does he pass WP:AUTHOR? I say no. Abductive (reasoning) 01:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, you also say his h-index is in the single digits. What is his h-index exactly and how was it calculated? What is your source for his h-index, in other words. And, are you saying this is about author? You only list prof in your nomination. Please clear up your nomination. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak delete h index is only useful in fields that rely on journal publications, and religion is not one of them. Book citations necessarily rely on G Scholar, and it does not include a reliably wide range of publications. I do wish the nom would stop using it as a primary argument. But Assistant Professors are rarely notable. He has one book, Spirits, blood, and drums : the Orisha religion in Trinidad, but it is found in 394 libraries. Oddly, since it seems to have at least two reviews (HB of Latin American Studies, and Archives de sciences sociales des religion,) & has been cited 17 times, it might technically meet the N criteria for books. I think they are somewhat too broad on the basis of inconsistency with our standards for other things. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

:*Shall I be more explicit? These are people who are alive, and may be offended if I say "this professor hasn't contributed one whit to the advancement of their field." This is a problem with BLPs. Abductive (reasoning) 23:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. Data on library holding are valuable is assessing such articles. Subject may make notable contributions in the future. Article was created too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:56, 2 November 2009 (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.