Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Williams (ethnomusicologist)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. @pple complain 05:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sean Williams (ethnomusicologist)

Sean Williams (ethnomusicologist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete. No assertion of notability. EndlessDan 15:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Question. Which source 'doesn't count?' I offered three. I linked to the amazon page because it included a copy of the Publisher's Weekly review, the Chronicle of Higher Education is a very significant and reliable source, and "A Chef's Table" is a nationally syndicated radio program. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • comment - "Low-selling" refers to just about every academic book, btw. Please, I hope to never see that argument again. Academics don't write for the NYT best-seller list; they write for their peers. The measures of influence are cites to their work. You can use whether their works show up in libraries as a rough proxy for that influence, too. Publication of a book with Oxford University Press and a reference from Garland pretty much guarantees a very wide distribution in libraries. --Lquilter 18:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Has published several books, even if they're not best sellers, and appears to be fairly eminent in her academic discipline. Jack1956 22:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The book reviews are sufficient for the notability, as for any author. DGG (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep -- (Ah, finally musicology! something I do have some expert knowledge of!) She's not in the list of the 25 ethnomusicologists for whom I would shout "ARE YOU KIDDING? KEEP!" in an AfD, but she's a solid researcher, above average in the field after the Oxford book (OUP is a really big name press for academics) and since them extremely well-known outside of it for the Cookbook. The other editors of the Garland encyclopedia series are clearly notable figures. Her books have gotten notice and reviews both in and outside the field, which is unusual. I'm not sure what "Source doesn't count" means in Reywas's argument (and the subject is a woman, as reading the article makes clear). -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep In addition to the claims of notability already present in the article, there are several articles available at this Google News Archive search for "Sean Williams ethnomusicologist", which establish notability from independent reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn 18:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and if appropriate tag for more references needed. If one of her books was reviewed in the Chronicle and she has edited a reference book with a major reference press (Oxford, Garland, etc.) then that's strong evidence of scholarly cred. --Lquilter 18:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per others above. This seems just the sort of article that Wikipedia needs more of if it's to be considered a serious encyclopedia for adults. Phil Bridger 21:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep John254 00:50, 12 November 2007 (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.