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. -- Cirt (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Ridgway (scholar)

[edit]

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

Declined speedy, subject in my opinion fails WP:PROF with a festschrift being the only reference. Some hits in google scholar, does not appear to have had much impact, but I'm no expert in his area of study. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep author of several books, and had a festchrift dedicated to him. That is normally taken here as sufficient importance to pass speedy. DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Hello, last three hours I studied on David Ridgway. He is a notable scholar. I just added big part of this wording with a reference in his article:
From 1968 he taught first as Lecturer and subsequently Reader in Archaeology and finally as Reader in Classics at the Edinburgh University, where his wife Francesca Romana Serra Ridgway was an honorary fellow for years. (In the archaeology department.) Ridgway and his wife, in 2003, retired and moved to London where they both were awarded with an associate level of Fellowship at the Institute of Classical Studies associated with the University of London.

This is the reference: Ridgway Teaches at The Edinburg University Where his Wife is an Honorary Fellow - Obituary notes about Francesca Romana Serra Ridgway by Fellow Tom Rasmussen More to come. Fusion is the future (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Book published in Italian and in English by Cambridge University Press, Festschrift, citations in Google Scholar ([1]) - surely enough to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and Question, I'm sure he's a fine fellow, but which of these match criteria at WP:PROF? The bar for notability of academics is pretty high, simply being published isn't enough, neither is work as a professor. The festscritft is a possibility I suppose, although my experience with them is that they are generally a kind of vanity publication, an honorific from close associates and friends. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your caution, but in addition to what I'd said above do also note that his books are cited on the Italian Wikipedia, English Wikipedia and Britannica. AllyD (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that that helps much at all in terms of meeting WP:PROF. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (changing to Keep, see below) When I saw the mention of a Festschrift I thought "Oh well, he must obviously be notable" - because a Festschrift is a rare tribute given to a top person in a field by the other top people in the field. But from the information about the book at WorldCat, it doesn't look anything like a traditional Festschrift. Instead of an editor and dozens of contributors, it says there are a total of three authors - and two of them are the subject himself and his wife! So this does not appear to be the usual career-capping tribute and does not add to his notability, which seems otherwise undistinguished. --MelanieN (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems like the main argument for keeping is the existence of a Festchrift for him, but per MelanieN's comment, I'd like to see consensus that this is indeed a notability-establishing honor in this case. /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ The presence of a self-published Festschrift to me is an indication of non-notability. Google Scholar citations are meager. Doesn't meet WP:PROF. --Pgallert (talk) 07:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
change to Keep per discussion below. --Pgallert (talk) 09:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. GS cites give an h index of 10 in the little cited field of Etruscan studies. May be sufficient for WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Comment, the value of festschrifts to establish notability varies widely, since they are essentially a vanity publication. My concern with this one would be the number of copies in existence. And unlike the criteria for athletes, the bar for academics is quite high, being a professional isn't sufficient. We might ought to change that, but for the time being it is what it is. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To clarify: The festschrift is not selfpublished, it is published by Accordia Research Institute (University of London) and contains articles by 47 (!) authors including really big names in classical archaeology (like John Boardman and Nicolas Coldstream) and is certainly not edited or authored by Ridgway. Few academics are the subject of a festschrift and extremely few get one of this caliber. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pax, can you give a citation for that information? Because the link at WorldCat that I cited above lists only the two subjects and the editor under "list all authors and editors". I thought that seemed odd! If it does have 41 expert contributors I will accept it as a notability-confirming Festschrift and change my opinion. A Festchrift is not normally a "vanity publication" as Nuujinn states; it requires the input of a lot of notable people in the field. --MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have been more explicit. Festschrifts are, IME anyway, usually published as an honorific put together by close associates and are often published by a local press. They aren't the same as peer reviewed publications such as journal, and to my mind the degree to which they would establish notability would depend upon how widely circulated the document is and the notability of the contributors. They do not necessarily have the input of many notable people, but if the person being honored is very notable, sometime do. I would concur with MelanieN that if there were 47 contributors, that would be notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some festschrift can be tricky notability-wise. Here is the correct bibliographic information with the 6 editors and the full list of article writers. Cheers/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That is clearly a book intended as a tribute to him (and to his wife - where is her Wikipedia article??) and I am changing my opinion below. --MelanieN (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He also has an entry in the Encyclopedia of the history of classical archaeology (page 1324). Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my opinion to Keep - his notability is established by the creation of a Festschrift in his honor by his contemporaries in his field. --MelanieN (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following this useful discussion. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, given this, I'm convinced. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:50, 9 November 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.