Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Carson Berry

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 delete. source analysis refutes claims of NAUTHOR and there's no indication Berry passes NACADEMIC Star Mississippi 13:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Carson Berry

[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)

clear COI, SOAP etc. insufficient secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Acous mana 12:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Acous mana 12:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough secondary sources to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes WP:AUTHOR with multiple published reviews of his works: [1] [2] [3] which means he passes the notability criteria. However, material not supported by sources need to be removed. --hroest 21:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:BEFORE (books) brings multiple works. WP:BEFORE (scholar) gives 174 citations and multiple articles in Online Journal of Music Theory. As above, passes WP:AUTHOR. --Whiteguru (talk) 23:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let's be careful on our citations. Berry's publications are in the Online Journal of Music Theory of the Mid-Atlantic (Better known as Gamut). This is a peer-reviewed journal, but not as prestigious as Music Theory Online, published by the Society for Music Theory. As far as I know, there's no such publication as Online Journal of Music Theory. PianoDan (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
re: WP:AUTHOR claim, please cite reliable sources that support any of the following:

[?] The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or
[?] The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or
[?] The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews; or
[?] The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Acous mana 23:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: I don't think Berry meets WP:AUTHOR. His book is an annotated bibliography with 41 citations. For that type of reference work, I'd expect to see a lot more citations to claim notability. So we're back to looking at WP:NACADEMIC.

Berry does NOT meet criteria two through eight that I can see, so the only grounds for inclusion would be number 1: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." And... I think he's close, but no cigar. 41 citations for his book in 18 years doesn't do it - even in the low cite field of Music theory. He has a Google Scholar h-index of 8, which is borderline. His university profile only lists 9 peer-reviewed publications. Just doesn't quite reach the bar. PianoDan (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete — like the above, its close, but I can't see any of the requirements for WP:AUTHOR or WP:NACADEMIC being confidently met. In addition, there just doesn't seem to be enough substantial and independent coverage on Berry himself. Aza24 (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2022 (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.