Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Benedict

:{{la|Philip Benedict}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Philip_Benedict Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Philip Benedict}})

This looks like a well referenced article on an academic. However, when you check the sources carefully, a very curious thing emerges. There are reliable independent sources about his parents, but the rest of it is sourced to his own work or his own biographical data (e.g. on his department website). There are no reliable independent sources about him, and as far as I can tell this has always been the case ever since the creation of the article. Virtually the entire thing is drawn from primary sources and independent evidence of significance is simply not provided. This is especially troubling given the current involvement of a single-purpose account determined to portray the subject in a certain light. Guy (Help!) 08:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - the current state of the article is of little relevance in determining this; the relevant guideline is WP:PROF. I don't quite know what profeseur honoraire means in terms of criterion 5, but the Google Scholar results, headlined by works of 187 and 120 citations respectively, suggests that the subject passes criterion 1. StAnselm (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• Keep and improve - per {{u|StAnselm}} reasoning. Also in this context I believe profeseur honoraire means something similar as a distinguished professor, meant to be translated as Honoured professor, so I think criterion 5 applies. The article does need more independent sources however. — Strongjam (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• "Professeur honoraire", according to google-translate, is professor emeritus, which is also what our article here has always said. That's not intrinsically notable...usually just means he was a professor and then retired (no more or less notable than being a professor or similar rank). If he were indeed honored, it would be for some major accomplishment or contribution, which would have secondary sources for the bestowal of the honor and/or highlighting him and his contribution to...whatever. DMacks (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• Ahh, I wasn't sure. I see know that he retired in 2015 so the emeritus makes sense. — Strongjam (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

:::: Yes, it means emeritus professor. You know that WP:PROF is only a guideline indicating the kind of person who is likely to be covered by reliable independent sources, yes? At some point those reliable independent sources have to come forward. This article has never had one, but it has had a lot of edits from people who appear to have a close connection to the subject. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

:::::What about the Adam Duker article in footnote 13? StAnselm (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

::::::Appearntly what Duker has to say about Benedict is that his line of thought is in opposition to the mainstream views, ie fringe. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

:::::::That's not clear from the WP article (which implies that Benedict is just approaching the subject from a different angle) but I have not read the journal article. StAnselm (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

:::::::: I suspect that any lack of clarity about his work being fringe is a result of the involvement of the WP:SPA. Guy (Help!) 06:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

::::::::::On second view, he is published by Yale [https://books.google.com/books?id=JKj_x3W01hoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22Philip+Benedict%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qQf_VKiDN9aiyASgyIKQDg&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Philip%20Benedict%22&f=false] and Oxford [https://books.google.com/books?id=ymwCwXE8Q0cC&pg=PR4&dq=%22Philip+Benedict%22+oxford&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cAj_VJLLFoORyQSMpIHICg&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Philip%20Benedict%22%20oxford&f=false] so at least some of his views probably have academic credence.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I see some news results [http://www.refdag.nl/kerkplein/kerknieuws/nieuw_tijdschrift_over_internationaal_gereformeerd_pietisme_gelanceerd_1_887660 here] and [http://www.lemondedesreligions.fr/actualite/pourquoi-les-suisses-ne-veulent-ils-pas-plus-de-vacances-14-03-2012-2360_118.php here]. StAnselm (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

::That second link identifies Benedict as:

:*"Philip Benedict, professeur à l’Institut d’histoire de la Réformation de Genève et spécialiste de Calvin,"

:*"Philip Benedict, Professor at the Institute of history of the Reformation in Geneva and specialist of Calvin," --machine translation
{{cite web|url=http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lemondedesreligions.fr%2Factualite%2Fpourquoi-les-suisses-ne-veulent-ils-pas-plus-de-vacances-14-03-2012-2360_118.php |title=Why the Swiss don't want no more vacation? |author=Matthew Mégevand |date=2012-03-14 |format=French-English}}
--172.164.9.85 (talk) 04:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Delete: The subject's notability seems questionable. Much effort has gone into WP:LARDING the article. Given all the previous effort adding sources, there is either little of significance to add, or the contributors are carefully ignoring them. A brief history: The article was created by a now banned sock {{user links|Adamduker}}. It was protected ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Philip+Benedict log]) as it was being edited by multiple IPs who were adding poorly sourced content. The article has been edited recently by a WP:SPA {{user links|RefHistory}} who was blocked recently for edit warring (WP:OWN?), but has not edited since the block expired. Perhaps WP:DENY is in order? Jim1138 (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
• Keep and Improve. Benedict has won multiple academic prizes. He has published or co-edited 11 important books and countless articles. Jim1138 has not shown how any of this is puff on the talk page. I have defended the sources -- University Press books that acknowledge his teaching, independent university websites on two continents, articles, etc. Jim's "history" is off here. This article has existed for several years. Recently, Huon came on and deleted huge quantities after a fight with another user on a different page. RefHistory (talk) 02:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC) — RefHistory (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

:::what awards and where is the evidence? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

:::::::the awards appear to be

:::::::* American Historical Association Guide to Historical Literature.{{cite book |author= |title=The American Historical Association's Guide to Historical Literature |volume= |edition=3rd |editor-last=Norton |editor-first=Mary Beth |editor2-last=Gerardi |editor2-first=Pamela |location=New York |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=1995 |page=834 |isbn=978-0-19-505727-0 }}

:::::::* 2003 Philip Schaff Prize from the American Society of Church History,{{cite web|title=Former grant and prize winners|url=http://www.churchhistory.org/prizewinners_schaff.html|publisher=American Society of Church History|accessdate=22 January 2013|year=2007|archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20120507052748/http://www.churchhistory.org/prizewinners_schaff.html |archivedate=7 May 2012}}

:::::::* Phyllis Goodhart Gordan Prize from The Renaissance Society of America.{{cite web|title=Gordan Prize Winners|url=http://www.rsa.org/?page=Gordanwinners|publisher=The Renaissance Society of America|accessdate=19 January 2013}}

:::::::Are those awards at the level that establish notability? I haven't heard of either the awards or the granting institutions, but I am not familiar with renaissance scholarship. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

:::: Indeed. Merely having published and taught does not make an academic notable, it sinply means they turned up to work. Guy (Help!) 06:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

:::::No, but writing a history book that gets 187 citations involves more than just showing up at work. StAnselm (talk) 08:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - A case of Single-purpose-accounts squeezing blood from the stones to make a subject appear more notable than they actually are. Actual, in-depth sourcing appears to be non-existent. Tarc (talk) 02:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
• weak keep, while the article has been subject to overly promotional editing, it appears that Benedict's works have been pretty widely cited and Oxford [https://books.google.com/books?id=ymwCwXE8Q0cC&pg=PR4&dq=%22Philip+Benedict%22+oxford&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cAj_VJLLFoORyQSMpIHICg&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Philip%20Benedict%22%20oxford&f=false] published work he edited, so he appears to have some clout in the field. It seems possible that with care to the material and how it is presented, it could be possible to build an appropriate article.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

{{reflist talk}}

• Keep He was the William Prescott and Annie McClelland Smith Professor of History and Religion at Brown University for many years (until he retired) and professors with named and university chairs automatically pass WP:article. That's not to say that it's a good article (t's not) only that he is WP:Notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. Held a named chair at a major university and was then a full professor (European universities don't have many named chairs) and director of an institute at another major university. Seems to me to meet WP:PROF. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - subject meets WP:PROF in several ways (as explained by others above). Once PROF notability is established, primary sources to fill in biographical details and completely acceptable by long standing convention. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Searching with the alternate spelling "Phil Benedict" may turn up some additional information, including: "Phil Benedict devised the reading course at Brown, and was the first to suggest the possibility of working on sermons." --{{cite book |author=Larissa Juliet Taylor |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=eX-0I7C0nSgC&pg=PA130#v=onepage&q=%22Phil%20Benedict%22&f=false |title=Soldiers of Christ: Preaching in Late Medieval and Reformation France |edition=Volume 14 of Renaissance Society of America reprint texts |publisher=University of Toronto Press |year=2002 |isbn=978-0802085573 |issn=1711-5752 |page=130}}
  --172.164.9.85 (talk) 04:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC) (I am not any of the named users associated with this article, but have edited it under several IP numbers: 172.162.77.52 & next 2 edits, 172.164.2.28, 172.162.6.142.)

: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.