Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. Brian Ferguson

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 . Star Mississippi 01:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

R. Brian Ferguson

[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)

Admittedly not my area of expertise so excuse me if I'm off the mark here, but from what I can tell this doesn't appear to meet WP:NACADEMIC. The sources don't seem to say anything about him receiving any awards, honors, fellowships, etc. Just looks like he's sold some books and been featured a couple times by Scientific American, but I don't know how massive an accomplishment that really is. It's also worth noting that the article may have been created by an editor with a conflict of interest who otherwise hasn't made a ton of edits. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Social science, New Jersey, and New York. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of meeting NPROF, it can be satisfied if they are often quoted as an expert in mainstream media. Scientific American counts, but I think we'd need at lease one more other source quoting him. Does anyone have any? BhamBoi (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:Prof. Nominator is advised to learn the policy guidelines that apply to a topic before editing there. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]
I mean it's not like I didn't read those guidelines. Calling something "not my area of expertise" doesn't mean I know nothing about it. And by my judgment, as I said above, I don't believe this article passes by those standards, so I ask what makes you think otherwise. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His books have reviews, and the citation count is fairly high for anthropology, passed NPROF-C1. --Mvqr (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In defense of the nominator, it took me a while before I fully understood the nuances of WP:NPROF; it's certainly one of our most complicated notability criteria. The subject seems to quite easily pass on just raw citations, which is also an indicator that, as an anthropologist, he may also WP:NAUTHOR on reviews, though I haven't checked this latter part yet. Curbon7 (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The alleged complexity of a policy is no excuse for failing to parse it correctly. If you can’t stand the heat keep out of the kitchen. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2023 (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.