Talk:Padraic Kenney

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template. If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page. If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

[edit] Notable historian?

I doubt this historian's notability. Among historians of Eastern Europe, he is not in the top tier. He has trained nobody -- there is no "Kenney" school or cohort. One of hs books (Carnival...) made a splash, but it has as many critics as supporters and did not cross any disciplinary boundaries of have larger relevance. Among East Europeanists, only Norman Naimark has a Wikipedia bio, and even his notability is questionable. Among the larger group "historians," Kenney does not have a major place. This is not sour grapes, it is simply a fact.Bubble07 12:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:PROF: The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. - this makes him notable.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I disagree, obviously. You must be speaking of Carnival, but that book does not satisfy the elaboration of "a significant and well-known academic work" as defined by WP:PROF: "An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course, if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works, if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature." Carnival only comes close to the third possibility, that it is cited widely. But, it is not cited widely in the academic literature. It is cited (not yet widely) in a unique subset of the academic literature. Clearly, that point of WP:PROF is meant to refer to books that have spawned wide-ranging debate (Brenner, for instance; E.P. Thompson, for another). Additionally, if Kenney is considered notable on these grounds, then there are dozens of historians and other academics -- no, thousands -- who need pages in Wikipedia. Bubble07 19:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, we are missing thousands of historians, I completly argree with that :) Now, look at the following evidence: 300 hits on Google Schoolar and over a hundred on Google Print. His works are widely known and cited; sure, he may not be a 'historian superstar' but he is certainly in a major league. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The Google hits method has drawbacks. At the end of that list are a lot of repeats. Google hits, even a lot of them, don't mean that he has had a major impact on his field (the sort of impact that spurring a long-running debate -- Brenner or Thompson, again -- has). I get 300 google scholar hits, and I don't have a page. And I don't want one, and I don't deserve one. I'm not going to pursue deletion, but I don't think Padraic Kenney merits this treatment. Nothing personal. Bubble07 02:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that one :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)