Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Farrell (political scientist)

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 of the debate was keep. howcheng {chat} 17:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Henry Farrell (political scientist)

speedy delted as nn-bio and restored. Notability sems very dubious to me. Weak delete unless better notability establsihed via verifiable sources. DES ^(talk) 02:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep Has a reasonable number of Google Scholar hits Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=%22Henry_Farrell%22&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1 Dlyons493 Talk 02:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete We expect academics to get hits for publishing, that's their job. You link didn't work for me, so I used this. I use what's cited and how often as a rough guide, and he's not cited often enough for me to thinks he's a notable in his field. He does get one mention on Google news, but that's a throw-away line at best. Always willing to change my mind if evidence of notability provided. - brenneman^(t)(c) 06:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing to Merge to crooked timber based upon additional sources. - brenneman^(t)(c) 01:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• keep - I just can't see the point of deleting. He's a real person, with real publications, he contributes to a notable blog - William M. Connolley 09:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• keep There are a lot of entries for people notable mainly because they write or contribute to a notable blog that is listed separately, the closest parallel being members of Volokh Conspiracy. Farrell in addition has real publications and a media profile. I made the entry on that basis JQ 11:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Please do give examples so that I may at once merge them into their parent article where they belong. I notice that this article makes claims that Farrell is "quoted extensively in mass media" but fails to support those but with a single link where he's mentioned in passing and is paraphrased rather than quoted. I'd refer to WP:BIO where, with the evidence to date, he does not qualify. - brenneman^(t)(c) 12:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Stated criteria at WP:BIO "better known and more published than the average professor" are met (link to CV added for latter point or use Google scholar). I agree that's a rather low bar, so I've added more media citations to back up notability JQ 20:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm not convinced that writing for any sort of blog is notable, and we're not likely to be able to find a lot of verifiable information other than from the blog, which I'd discount as a reliable source. —Cleared as filed. 12:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. His "publications" are what, a 27 page paper and some blog entries? Blogs are the ultimate vanity press; their writers have a very high bar to clear. If any real indicator of notability is asserted I may reconsider. -R. fiend 18:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Google Scholar seems to have over 15 publications. Dlyons493 Talk
    • Still not impressed, all academics publish something. Did he write any books or anything? 15 publications is hardly great, especially since some or all seem to be brief papers. the guy who's lab I used to sweep gets more than that. In fact, I can probably take any scientist in that building and get comparable results (if I could only remember their names). -R. fiend 22:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually Farrell has nearly twice as many Google Scholar hits as Martindale, and "Henry Farrell" gets 93000 Google hits, of which most front page items refer to the political scientist. "Mark Martindale" gets 380 hits, only a minority for the scientist.
        • Well, Henry Farrell is a much more common name, and don't you think that a few hits might be this Henry Farrell (or one of thousands of others)? Maybe some of the google scholar hits too, I'm not sure.) In any case, small academic papers are not widely read, if he's had articles in major magazines, or any written books, we'd be on the right track. -R. fiend 22:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
        • As noted in the entry under dispute, he has an article in Foreign Affairs which is a very influential magazine, and this article was quoted in an editorial in the Washington Times among other media. On your point about other Farrells, please reread my comment. I checked the first 100 entries to verify that most referred to the Farrell in question, and not the Henry Farrell whose notability is undisputed. Feel free to check a larger sample if you want.JQ 23:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn blogger of an nn blog. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks like you're wrong about the blog [1], but I guess you can pile in if you want William M. Connolley 22:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • While not commenting on this discussion, I'd like to say that that AfD was a really crap example of how things should run. Testimony of editors is not a citation, and having people simply say "notable blog" without (for example) providing links or references is somthing that we should, in the strongest possible way, discourage. - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• keep, article in major magazine, contributes to notable blog, published academic etc. Kappa 23:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I've cleaned up this article a bit. Iv'e had to remove some citations per Wikipedia:Reliable sources, please don't do anything but WP:AGF over my reasone for doing so. I'm now happy with merging based upon the additional cources. I'd ask that when people contribute to an AfD, they take the time to attempt to improve the article as opposed to just saying "keep" and wandering off.
  brenneman^(t)(c) 01:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious keep for his media prominence. I'd like to see a lot less of these steamingly stupid referrals from DRV. If an article was wrongly deleted, undelete it. If someone wants to list it for deletion, they will. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Ambi 11:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep due to media prominence and Google Scholar results. Hall Monitor 21:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete notability is questionable and published papers do not provide notability per WP:AFDP. (Note: I nominated for speedy) If its kept I would only support a merge to Crooked_Timber nothing more. --Pboyd04 03:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and no merge per Tony Sidaway. -- JJay 14:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Kappa.--cj | talk 15:20, 23 January 2006 (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.