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. Kevin (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creston Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Borderline notability; cleanup and better references may suffice to demonstrate notability though LotLE×talk 20:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. He seems to have an active academic career but I see no evidence that his research has yet had the impact needed to pass WP:PROF #1, I don't think his editing rises to the level of WP:PROF #8, and he clearly doesn't pass any of the other WP:PROF criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. David Eppstein’s analysis is right on target, but I should say that the subject is a co-author/editor of two books by prestigious university publishers, one by Duke University Press and the other by MIT Press. The most widely held is in 268 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat, and the second in 153 libraries. The article was create a bit early, and the subject is almost sure to pass WP:PROF notability criteria in the near future. I wonder if we could do anything to make it clear to academic bio article creators that waiting a little bit (often 1 or 2 years would be enough) would significantly enhance the chances of certain bio articles (like this) being kept. The flip side, unfortunately, is that creating articles too early frequently leads to embarrassment for the subjects of the articles, as the comments posted in these AfD discussions are often “brutal”. I heard of at least one recent case in which an AfD discussion, like this one, was printed and used in a tenure committee meeting discussion; needless to say, against the applicant.--Eric Yurken (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gah. We have far less information to go on than real tenure committees, and our decisions are made on different bases. I hope this sort of thing is very infrequent. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• A wise warning above. It is also sometimes the case that articles about an academic are created by one of their students, eager to puff themselves up by proxy, and which cause embarassment. But GS cites in this case appear to be negligible so it is difficult to avoid Delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Weak keep. Despite being nominator, I went back and took a look for Dr. Davis in the Google Scholar link above. I'm inclined to think that his editorship on several books on "good" presses, about areas of current scholarly research, nudges this towards keep. I think Eric Yurken is right that this article might have done better to wait a year for creation, but given it's here, I'm not sure keeping it around during that year is really a bad thing. I don't know if the article was indeed created by a student or colleague, as Xxanthippe suggests is likely, but the merit need not be judged on the article's origin, in any case. LotLE×talk 23:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not suggest anything of the sort. I have no idea of the real personae of the editors and creators of the article. My comment was of a generic nature although my recommendation to delete is specific this this article. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I should not, as full disclosure, that I only noticed the article existing (or heard of Creston Davis) when some overzealous editor linked to it from the article on prominent academic Slavoj Zizek (whom I've written about in academic publications, and whose article I tend to maintain, and who was also a teacher and collaborator of Dr. Davis). Zizek obviously has many far less prominent academics whom he has taught or worked with, and Zizek's notability is not transferable by mere collaboration. LotLE×talk 23:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Scholarly output and impact seem roughly commensurate for someone early in their academic career, i.e. not yet notable according to WP:PROF #1. Note that he is an editor only of the "book reviews" section of the journal, not the journal itself, which specifically does not pass #8. No claim on any of the other PROF criteria leave us with an unambiguous delete. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 05:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete not yet notable. Junior coauthor and coeditor on 3 books,with only minor contributions to the edited ones. his advisor (Slavoj Zizek,) is notable, he is not, at least not now. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no indication in the article that Zizek is his advisor; and that seems highly unlikely, because I don't think Zizek has had an advisory position at a Western institution, particularly at Rollins. Even if he did, that doesn't denote notability . Shadowjams (talk) 10:56, 6 October 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.