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 No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Bramble[edit]

Tom Bramble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable academic. Only mentioned in one article listed in the entry, written by Socialist Alternative which fails as a neutral reliable source. Fails WP:Academic. No notable contributions, articles listed are minor and refer largely to existing work. No listed academic awards. No memberships in prestigous scholary organisations.His work does not affect a signficant number of academic institutions.Holds now proffessorship chairs. Not covered by WP:CREATIVE Rotovia (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong DeleteAs stated above Rotovia (talk) 08:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: this nominator has !voted both here and below. It seems like clarifying/refactoring his separate comments to avoid appearances of attempting to game the discussion would be helpful. LotLE×talk 09:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WorldCat shows holdings about what is expected for an academic book (<200). His peer-reviewed scholarship, though consisting of about 20 papers, is barely cited by other works. WoS shows counts of 9, 2, 2, 0, 0, ... for an h-index of at most 2. The overall picture here seems to be one where impact is far short of what is required by WP:PROF. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Strong keep. Independent sources. Notable book. On executive of notable organization. This nom feels like one of those far too many cases now of deletionist bias. LotLE×talk 22:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Now that I have made a minor improvement to the article (nothing affecting notability, just WP:STYLE and wording tweaks), but also since I looked around for web presence a bit, I change my "Keep" to "Strong keep". This is one of those article where it would be a stupid, damn shame to needlessly delete a notable figure with a good biography. General reasons and argument are not different, I've just looked a bit more in detail at the independent sources. LotLE×talk 09:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• And here I am wondering why I can't get anything deleted these days. I feel like the pendulum has swung too far in the keep direction lately. Abductive (reasoning) 11:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as notable author. I do not think he passes wp:prof, however. DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Good faith assumption would be appreciated. I can see no indication of notable works cited by other academic sources as required for WP:Academic. Please reference these if you have located them Rotovia (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems to pass on WP:Author. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

For the purposes of WP:Bio a number of categories including WP:Author fall under WP:Creative, and if someone is an academic they are covered by WP:Academic. The books are also not notable in and of themselves Rotovia (talk) 09:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect: a subject may pass in any category that they fall under. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

He does not fall under WP:Author, and books are not notable Rotovia (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If he writes books he would appear to fall into the category of WP:Author. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Of course, the writing of the books part is not necessarily sufficient – like peer-reviewed pubs, they have to be able to clear a "significance" hurdle (e.g. "a significant or well-known work" in WP:AUTHOR), which we normally assess by institutional holdings. Here, WorldCat shows 185 for the Trade Unionism book, 3 for the Labor Party book, and 71 for the Jock Barnes book. These stats don't strike me as very impressive, even for academic-sector books. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment There seems to be a trend on AfD's to judge many individuals who hold academics posts by the hyper-strict criteria of WP:PROF (which is itself vastly more restrictive than it was a few years ago). However, many of these biographies (including this one), easily meet WP:GNG and/or WP:AUTH, even if they fail on WP:PROF by itself. Our goal on AfD discussion should not be to locate the most restrictive criteria possible for each topic, but to determine if it meets notability under any of the prongs of that standard. LotLE×talk 22:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It is clear that this subject is being judged under WP:AUTHOR. Those notvoters above who are only addressing WP:PROF will likely be ignored by the closing admin. Abductive (reasoning) 11:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The !vote by Agricola44 and the first !vote by Rotovia explicitly state failure under WP:PROF as their reason for their opinion. Rotovia later "casts" a second, duplicate !vote indicating that he doesn't believe the bio subject satisfies WP:AUTH, but Agricola44 has not indicated whether he has considered WP:AUTH as of this moment. LotLE×talk 09:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarification. Please re-read my second entry. I've reported institutional holdings for his books, which are routinely used to assess WP:AUTH. In effect, I'm claiming (without casting an explicit 2nd "delete") that the subject does not pass WP:AUTH either. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• Strong Delete Not notable as author Rotovia (talk) 01:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vote more than once. You voted on 3 Feb. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Allow me to clarify, I'm offering my vote under WP:Author Rotovia (talk) 09:22, 7 February 2010 (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.