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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John E.S. Lawrence[edit]

Appears to fail WP:PROF contested speedy by Dpmuk Gigs (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 03:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. GS gives cites of 35, 20, 9, 6, 5, h = 5. Does not look encouraging for WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Fails to meet notability requirements for academics or general notability requirements. There may also be conflict of interest issues as the only major contributors to the article appear to be John E.S. Lawrence and his wife.Dgf32 (talk) 06:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I contested this speedy as A7 only applies to an article that "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". The article says he's an adjunct professor, one of the links in the article clearly states that he has over 100 publications and by reading the talk page and going to one of the articles mentioned it would appear that the Lawrence Peaks were named after him. To me this is more than enough to not be speedied as to survive a speedy there only has to be indications why they may be notable - it does not have to be proved. At the time I thought it unlikely that the article would survive WP:PROD (unless removed by author) or WP:AfD but thought it deserved longer consideration in case I'd missed something. Dpmuk (talk) 10:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An adjunct professor "does not hold a permanent position at that particular academic institution" meaning that he doesn't come close to meeting WP:PROF #5. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I nver claimed it does. However I do think that having the standing of a full professor (this page suggests it is adjunct full professor) is a indication of possible notabality and that to me, especially when taken with my other points, is enough to pass the lower standard needed to surivive speedy. Dpmuk (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is so such thing as an "Adjunct (Full) Professor". The web page with the CV stating that he's an "Adjunct (Full) Professor" is pure self-promotion at best and academic dishonesty at worst. The terms "full professor", "associate professor", and "assistant professor" refer only to tenured and tenure-track faculty. Since an adjunct professor is a non-tenure track, part-time, temporary, non-salaried position, the terms full, associate, and assistant professors don't apply. Dgf32 (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to carry on comments here as they're irrelvant to this AfD but a fuller discussion is on my talk page. Dpmuk (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no indication that the topic meets WP:PROF or WP:BIO. No indication that the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", meaning that WP:GNG is not met. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An adjunct full professor is usually a person of some very considerable degree of distinction, usually in the real world rather than academic professional field of the department, who is affiliated with a program. The implication that if they were part of the regular academic world , they'd be qualified for full professor. DGG (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? He's a regular adjunct professor. It says so right on his CV and on his faculty page. Gigs (talk) 01:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal: (i) Columbia University does not list Lawrence as an "adjunct full professor", merely as an "adjunct professor"[1] (ii) does DGG have any WP:RS backing up the implicit claim that the position of "adjunct full professor" has any formal existence, let alone the claims they make about this position? (iii) Even if "adjunct full professor" (a) did in fact exist as a formal position, (b) Lawrence was one & (c) DGG's claims about it were verified, it still would not meet WP:PROF #5. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the United States at least, adjunct professors are also commonly part time teachers that fill positions that do not require a professor to teach. Examples are college speech courses and basic and intro to English courses, often taught by someone with a Master's degree. I've also seen the positions used to allow teachers in basic fields w/o having to meet all the salary and contract requirements a uni has to its faculty. In general (but not always) it is not a position of particular importance.Fuzbaby (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (in response to DGG) DGG correctly described a set of terminology in use at a very small number of U.S. universities that have abandoned the traditional academic titles in favor of creating their own systems, which usually are designed to correlate with pay grade. However, the vast majority of universities in the U.S. use the the traditional titles as I described above. Dgf32 (talk) 09:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is Columbia University one of this "very small number of U.S. universities"? If not, then DGG's description of their terminology would not appear to be relevant to Lawrence. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Columbia University does not use the term "Adjunct Full Professor" for any faculty. All "adjunct professors" are referred to as such. Dgf32 (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Lawrence
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment from subject - Just for the record, let me briefly explain my recent introduction to WP, because there seems to be misunderstanding here, and unprofessional statements being thrown around. Firstly, when (rashly) ignorant of WP criteria, my original purpose in contributing was in specific reference to Antarctic exploration, and to an exploratory expedition that I led to the Victory Mountains for the NZ government. That expedition is extensively documented (I have provided several independent, published references). If I remember correctly, my name was highlighted in reference to the mountain range which now bears my name, with what I thought was a request for further information on me.. so (then unaware of COI limitations) I offered such information, which can be seen on other (history) pages. All of that information is independently verifiable, and detailed sources were provided. As already noted, my CV, and a selected sampling of more recent publications (in books, reputable academic journals, and published technical reports) are available at http://www.cambridgedata.com/johnlawrence/ and in many other web sources. Whether it is `notable’ or not is a fair question, and for WP fairly to decide. But anyone would ask for, and expect fairness here. The reference below to my wife is wrong and uncalled for. She neither contributed to, nor knows anything about this page, or any of this discussion. I have published what I said I published, and any suggestion of `academic dishonesty’ is unfair and unacceptable. The point about no difference between ranks in adjunct faculty is also incorrect by the way. My rank at Columbia is that of adjunct (full) prof, not adjunct associate or adjunct assistant. Whether or not to delete this page is entirely within you folks’ judgment, and I respect that. My information on mountain exploration (documented in the Alpine Club Journals of New Zealand and the US as well as other journals), and on my work in human development and the UN system (on which I have been widely published) was offered, perhaps mistakenly, but in good faith. Jeslw (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Even if your personal article is deleted, your contributions to the encyclopedia are still welcome. It's not necessary to know all the policies before you start, so no one will hold it against you. We have higher standards of inclusion for standalone articles than we do for information inside articles. A subject must be both notable and verifiable to get its own article, information inside articles must only be verifiable and neutral. Gigs (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Lawrence

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment from subject - Just for the record, let me briefly explain my recent introduction to WP, because there seems to be misunderstanding here, and unprofessional statements being thrown around. Firstly, when (rashly) ignorant of WP criteria, my original purpose in contributing was in specific reference to Antarctic exploration, and to an exploratory expedition that I led to the Victory Mountains for the NZ government. That expedition is extensively documented (I have provided several independent, published references). If I remember correctly, my name was highlighted in reference to the mountain range which now bears my name, with what I thought was a request for further information on me.. so (then unaware of COI limitations) I offered such information, which can be seen on other (history) pages. All of that information is independently verifiable, and detailed sources were provided. As already noted, my CV, and a selected sampling of more recent publications (in books, reputable academic journals, and published technical reports) are available at http://www.cambridgedata.com/johnlawrence/ and in many other web sources. Whether it is `notable’ or not is a fair question, and for WP fairly to decide. But anyone would ask for, and expect fairness here. The reference below to my wife is wrong and uncalled for. She neither contributed to, nor knows anything about this page, or any of this discussion. I have published what I said I published, and any suggestion of `academic dishonesty’ is unfair and unacceptable. The point about no difference between ranks in adjunct faculty is also incorrect by the way. My rank at Columbia is that of adjunct (full) prof, not adjunct associate or adjunct assistant. Whether or not to delete this page is entirely within you folks’ judgment, and I respect that. My information on mountain exploration (documented in the Alpine Club Journals of New Zealand and the US as well as other journals), and on my work in human development and the UN system (on which I have been widely published) was offered, perhaps mistakenly, but in good faith. Jeslw (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if your personal article is deleted, your contributions to the encyclopedia are still welcome. It's not necessary to know all the policies before you start, so no one will hold it against you. We have higher standards of inclusion for standalone articles than we do for information inside articles. A subject must be both notable and verifiable to get its own article, information inside articles must only be verifiable and neutral. Gigs (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'll defer to others to judge notability claims on the basis of exploration and such, but from the academic perspective the subject does not appear to have any substantive notability. I base this assessment on his claimed publication record, i.e. "he has over 100 publications". His website lists some conference papers, university reports, course materials/handouts, etc. Let me respectfully remind our commentators here that, with some very specific exceptions, institutions do not typically consider these as being of the same caliber as archival journal publications for the purposes of academic promotion, tenure, etc. There are a few entries that look like they could be journal publications, but they could not be readily verified. For example, the link he gives to Lawrence and Singh Sustainable Livelihoods and Employment, Int. J. Tech. Cooperation 3(1), 1997, 92-109 is dead – the journal seems to be defunct. I also checked Web of Science using the following, fairly complicated search to filter false hits based on the commonality of the name: Author=(Lawrence J*); Refined by: Document Type=(ARTICLE) AND Institutions=(COLUMBIA UNIV) AND [excluding] Authors=(LAWRENCE, JR OR LAWRENCE, JF OR LAWRENCE, JJ OR LAWRENCE, JM); Timespan=All Years. This returned 10 hits, which I checked individually, finding none of them to be authored by our subject. I did not see any published books in his list either. It is possible that he has older papers that do not appear in the electronic version of WoS or papers authored while at another institution. Please note any of these if such are found. Otherwise, I think that when taken with the GS results found by Xxanthippe, a fairly solid picture of non-notability on WP:PROF #1 has emerged. None of the other WP:PROF criteria seem to be satisfied either, including #5 (as an adjunct). Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment from Lawrence
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment from subject I am very hesitant to belabor these points, and appreciate the time spent by many on this, but again, not trying to justify `notability' but just for the accurate record, please remember that internet searches are very choosy, and there are many Lawrences. Middle initials are important. I just did a quick search for Lawrence J E S in the `Author Finder' of the ISIKNOWLEDGE data base of Web of Science, and immediately found five hits on my work, and a sixth under Lawrence J E. Anyway, surely John Wiley, Springer, Oxford University Press, UNESCO and Sage are reputable publishers (all of whom have published me as sole author) and Psychological Bulletin, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Evaluation Review, Evaluation and Program Planning, Human Resource Development Review, and the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science are reputable journals, all of whom (and several others) have published my work. For quick review of just 5 web references, please see ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] Jeslw (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Lawrence

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment from subject

I am very hesitant to belabor these points, and appreciate the time spent by many on this, but again, not trying to justify `notability' but just for the accurate record, please remember that internet searches are very choosy, and there are many Lawrences. Middle initials are important. I just did a quick search for Lawrence J E S in the `Author Finder' of the ISIKNOWLEDGE data base of Web of Science, and immediately found five hits on my work, and a sixth under Lawrence J E. Anyway, surely John Wiley, Springer, Oxford University Press, UNESCO and Sage are reputable publishers (all of whom have published me as sole author) and Psychological Bulletin, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Evaluation Review, Evaluation and Program Planning, Human Resource Development Review, and the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science are reputable journals, all of whom (and several others) have published my work. For quick review of just 5 web references, please see ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] Jeslw (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. Thanks. I've done a new WoS search using Author=(lawrence j e s), which returns 4 refereed publications, one having 8 citations, one having 3, and the remainder having zero. As for the additional references you list, I'm afraid that things like unpublished reports are not likely to carry much weight here, though I'll certainly let other commentators weigh-in for themselves. I regret to say that this doesn't change matters much. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment from Lawrence
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Further note from subject Again in the interests of fairness and accuracy, WoS actually lists 49 citations for my `Science and Sentiment' article for Psych Bulletin. 69.183.5.80 (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Lawrence

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Further note from subject

Again in the interests of fairness and accuracy, WoS actually lists 49 citations for my `Science and Sentiment' article for Psych Bulletin. 69.183.5.80 (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have repeated the search of all the databases on Web of Science for "Lawrence JES" and confirm the findings of Agricola44 with cites of 8, 4, 3, 0, 0, giving an h index of 3. I have been unable to find citations to the paper in "Psych Bulletin". Looking back at the history of the academic AfD pages the minimum standards for notability WP:Prof on the basis of scholarly citations appear to be taken to be around several hundred cites and an h index of 15. Many subjects have numbers far greater than that. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Per the discussion above, we don't have enough of a record of heavy citation of his works to justify passing WP:PROF #1. Merely having a long list of publications of some sort is not part of the WP:PROF criteria. And I don't see any other reason for keeping. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:Prof #1 or other academic criteria. Only other claim to notability is the happenstance of being the leader of a New Zealand Antarctic expedition that identified the Lawrence Peaks, an article also extensively edited by the subject. My view is that the matter is dealt with sufficiently in that article. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Still more comments from Lawrence
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Further note from subject again, in the interests of fairness and accuracy, WP editors' inability to find the `Science and Sentiment' article for Psych Bulletin is curious... it is referenced under Lawrence JE (as #53 in the first listing in ISIWK N=71)) and has been cited 49 times... anyway, until this series of discussions I had no idea about the web of science data source, and thank WP for introducing me... find myself reasonably placed with an index of around 5 with many more distinguished full-time colleagues, falling well short of WP `notability' criteria notwithstanding....the funny thing is, Ive only really been an `academic' since retirement! and by the way, does WP really stand behind `happenstance' as a standard of judgment for NZ Government selection of its NZARP field crews? . Jeslw (talk) 03:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Every editor speaks for themselves here, not for the project. That said, notability rests on third party coverage. The "Lawrence Peaks" seem only marginally notable themselves (only a few mentions in scholarly works). Even if they are notable, notability isn't inherited. Gigs (talk) 04:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Brief (and final) reply from subject Points well taken, thanks, but the `project' in general - which is an extraordinary contribution to knowledge, and increasingly well respected - will be judged substantially by the quality/integrity of its editorial process. Fairness and accuracy seem worth arguing for. Furthermore, my own case aside, resting the concept of `notability' mainly on western `scholarly' journals might be considered questionable itself in today's global environment. Value-added of professional contributions in different settings, regions and cultures (adequately documented by third parties) would also seem relevant. Anyway, perhaps that's a suggestion that should be made elsewhere.Jeslw (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still more comments from Lawrence

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Further note from subject again, in the interests of fairness and accuracy, WP editors' inability to find the `Science and Sentiment' article for Psych Bulletin is curious... it is referenced under Lawrence JE (as #53 in the first listing in ISIWK N=71)) and has been cited 49 times... anyway, until this series of discussions I had no idea about the web of science data source, and thank WP for introducing me... find myself reasonably placed with an index of around 5 with many more distinguished full-time colleagues, falling well short of WP `notability' criteria notwithstanding....the funny thing is, Ive only really been an `academic' since retirement! and by the way, does WP really stand behind `happenstance' as a standard of judgment for NZ Government selection of its NZARP field crews? . Jeslw (talk) 03:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every editor speaks for themselves here, not for the project. That said, notability rests on third party coverage. The "Lawrence Peaks" seem only marginally notable themselves (only a few mentions in scholarly works). Even if they are notable, notability isn't inherited. Gigs (talk) 04:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brief (and final) reply from subject Points well taken, thanks, but the `project' in general - which is an extraordinary contribution to knowledge, and increasingly well respected - will be judged substantially by the quality/integrity of its editorial process. Fairness and accuracy seem worth arguing for. Furthermore, my own case aside, resting the concept of `notability' mainly on western `scholarly' journals might be considered questionable itself in today's global environment. Value-added of professional contributions in different settings, regions and cultures (adequately documented by third parties) would also seem relevant. Anyway, perhaps that's a suggestion that should be made elsewhere.Jeslw (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - upon reading the stub, the arguments from independent editors, and WP:PROF, it does not appear this person passes WP:PROF as an adjunct. If additional sources can show his notability as a consultant, then he might pass WP:N generically. Bearian (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2009 (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.