Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David J. Jackson

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. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Jackson

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Between the two sentence stub and the admission of self-creation, this isn't a particularly promising page. I don't know if there's anything approaching a minimum number of citations sought for an NACADEMICS#1/#4 pass, and perhaps the 703 listed on Google Scholar is far and away enough, but I couldn't find any evidence of passage of any other NACADEMICS criteria so I would feel wrong just leaving this here without bringing it up for discussion. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Ohio. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:PROMO self promotional article written by a university professor 7 years ago. The only source is WP:PRIMARY, his own personal bio page at the university. — Maile (talk) 11:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. He fails WP:NACADEMIC criterion 1 (his h-index of 10 is much lower than would be expected from a senior professor in the social sciences). However, he passes NACADEMIC criterion 7(a) as "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." See quotations in the Financial Times, The Atlantic, Associated Press, PolitiFact, Canadian Broadcasting Corp., Axios, Variety, the Tennessean, the Detroit News and more on his area of expertise, which is celebrity influence on politics. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The citation profile doesn't stand out as above average. Arguably, he works in a field where book publication is a more significant indicator than journal-article publication, so per WP:AUTHOR we should look for reliable reviews. He has written two books, per his faculty bio, and I'd be willing to call this a WP:AUTHOR pass if both had received multiple substantial reviews in the academic literature. However, I could only find two reviews of Entertainment and Politics [1][2] and none for Classrooms and Barrooms: An American in Poland. (This review of the latter is on a personal website and doesn't count.) XOR'easter (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a third review for the first book. I similarly did not find any reviews of the second. BhamBoi (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the quotations linked above are particularly substantive. Maybe if there were more of an interview or analysis with some depth rather than a brief conceptual summary, but these are lacking and don't establish notability. I also don't appreciate an WP:Autobiography. Reywas92^Talk 04:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92 NACADEMIC criterion 7a does not establish a SIGCOV-style test for “substantiveness” of quotations, only frequency and a requirement that they be in conventional media not local to the subject. This subject passes that test. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I don’t appreciate an autobio either, but that’s not what we’re trying to assess at AfD and autobio/promo concerns are minimized when the article is a stub this short. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:AUTHOR. There's another review of "Entertainment and Politics" in Political Communication 25(3) 2008. There's a half page discussion of "Classrooms and Barrooms" in the Sentinel Tribune, 10 April 2009 ("Classrooms and Barrooms offers a glimpse into lives of working class Poles"), but newspapers.com is offline for the Wikilibrary at the moment so I can't actually clip the article. Nevertheless, WP:NEXIST. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion reopened and relisted per consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 August 12.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've just added a clear statement of notability and expanded to discuss Jackson's research and academic career, including the sources raised during this discussion, as an effort to improve this article per WP:HEY. To address the "delete" !votes above, the article is no longer a stub, it has been expanded to the point that the self-creation issue appears moot (less than one sentence remains from the original and it is a non-contested statement about his educational history), and sources have been added to validate the claims of notability under WP:NACADEMIC and WP:NAUTHOR. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment great big chapeau to @Dclemens1971: for all the clean up work, despite AfD not being cleanup. To reiterate, there's a pass of WP:NAUTHOR c.3 - body of work with multiple reviews in independent, reliable sourcing. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:HEY pass. Jclemens (talk) 01:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable author.—Alalch E. 14:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NAUTHOR with multiple reviews for Entertainment and Politics and at least one review for Classrooms and Barrooms. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.