Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bart Van Es

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 no consensus (kept by default) - Nabla (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bart Van Es

Bart Van Es (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Notability is not shown. Is he notable? DimaG (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. He has written 3 books [1] and a look on Google Scholar [2] shows citations to his work, and some reviews of it. Someone with more expertise in the field is likely to be able to come up with more sources. Overall, I think this author/academic just passes the guidelines of WP:PROF. Kevin (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep notable as a writer of standard works on his subject. A critical companion to Spenser studies publ. by Macmillan, in 335 libraries. Early modern English poetry : a critical companion by Oxford UP , in 338; Spenser's forms of history again by OUP, 250. 3 books by major publishers in essentially all major university libraries. Overthe bar. DGG (talk) 01:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Google Scholar lists only six citations for all his works combined.[3] I need evidence that his books have influenced his field before I !vote to keep.--FreeKresge (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

these are basically reference books, not the sort of thing that usually gets cited. The OUP critical companion series is a major comprehensive series & doing one of the volumes is quite a sign of recognition. DGG (talk) 03:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

My Google Scholar search was for all his works as an author, not just the Critical Companion series, so I cannot see if he has done something to merit this sign of recognition or if he was just someone willing to do the work. Furthermore, I cannot find any independent reliable sources that provide nontrivial coverage of him, something that WP:PROF requires regardless of whether other criteria are met.--FreeKresge (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The nature of the publications and the lack of serious coverage by any independent sources point to a non notable subject. --Stormbay (talk) 02:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment he also appears to have written for The Times although I doubt that this role has been covered by reliable sources. The works he has authored/ edited seem to have recieved some attention, is their any precident for an X and their works article on Wikipedia? Guest9999 (talk) 12:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

-in general we've been doing the article on the person, and the works are discussed as what shows the notability--the exception is sometimes when there is one principal very well known work , much better known for the person. After all, one person will possibly write more works, but not the other way round--so the bio article is the one likely to be expanded. DGG (talk) 04:18, 28 May 2008 (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.