Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Watson

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 November 21.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. The majority of editors in this discussion favoured keeping this article, however, they lacked a compelling rationale, relying mostly on WP:ITSNOTABLE. There are cases in which our usual standards for the inclusion of topics in the encyclopaedia – significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources – are ignored in the face of an overriding reason, but there is no motivation to make an exception in this instance. Skomorokh, barbarian 02:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Watson

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

This professor does not seem to pass WP:PROF to me. Abductive (reasoning) 02:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective view. Think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxhound66 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Btilm 03:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, bordering on strong. Generic deletion rationale is subjective and unconvincing. Nontrivial hits and GScholar and GBooks, plus awards in field listed on official website. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank youFoxhound66 (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely Keep. one of the foreunners in critical political economy. What is your reason to delete an influential IPE Scholar?Foxhound66 (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of citations? Lack of evidence that he is influential? Abductive (reasoning) 20:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you deem of lack of citiations is the simple mindedness. Professor Watson has added greatly to the literature of BritishIPe and should be considered more an IPE Scholar than even Francis Fukuyama Foxhound66 (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like how can you justify Matthew Watomn's deletion and not nominate Ronen Palan?Foxhound66 (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. Nothing is preventing you from nominating articles on topics you know to be non-notable. Abductive (reasoning) 21:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You simply dont understand. Both Watson and Palan are distinguished scholars in the field. Simply reason just becuase there's little on thme does not help. Again they are "more" IPE scholar than that of Francis Fukuyama. Think before you remvoed everything here.Foxhound66 (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what; the International Political Economy article has a huge list of Notable IPE scholars many of whom are redlinked. Can you find any bluelinked ones on that list that are not-notable? Tell us a couple of them, and if they have less citations than Matthew Watson I'll believe you. Abductive (reasoning) 21:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The professor in question does seem to be quite big in his field, he's been quoted and consulted by many major newspapers about current events. I can't find much on him academically though. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's because you aren't looking hard enough128.232.246.95 (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two articles and a book is not notability. Few Assistant professors are notable & there is no sign that he is one of them (we could even take the very nature of an untenured position to mean that the notability is not yet recognized by the profession). Comparing one person to another is a classic non-argument, used in either direction -- we lack many articles on people we should have and have some on those we should not. Some of the arguments above seem to be saying that he ought to be notable. That;s not an argument either. How an assistant professor can be a forerunner in a field that has been in existence for about two centuries escapes me entirely. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait firtsly IPE is not the same as political economy (which is under the school of economics), get your facts right. Secondly, he has published more than two articles and a book (see his own publication page and the range of publications under academic journals). All these acadmeics are thorough academics in ta field that just emerged from the sub set of International Realtions. Palan is IPE, Watson is IPe Fukuyama is more IR than IPE.128.232.246.95 (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query. On his web site he claims he is Professor of Political Economy, yet the WP article states that he is Assistant Professor. GS cites are 39, 31, 25, 21... which seem meager for a full Professor. What is the resolution? Xxanthippe (talk) 08:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

How does that ever matter? No one address assistant professors in communcations as Assistant Professor xxx. Do you know that even Drs/lecturers are called professors?128.232.246.95 (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His department has split the difference, and says he is an Associate Professor. This must have happened since April 2009, the last time the article creator edited. Abductive (reasoning) 10:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His web page on the University of Warwick's site states he is Professor. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

See the BLP problem? His website says that, but as of the creation of the Wikipedia article. he was Assistant. His website cannot be believed. Abductive (reasoning) 11:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What nonsense again. He is a reader in International Political Economy. He was previous a senior lecturer but even then people call such lecturers professors by mistake.128.232.246.95 (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Prof or Assoc. Prof: In answer to Abductive - a webpage on him on the University of Warwick's website is, I think, an authoritative source for attribtuting his job title. It is the University's page not his private page. To double check I phoned the department and after checking some lists the administrator said he is now a "full professor". I have put further evidence to his true status on the article's discussion page. Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The mind reels at this inversion of the usual finding in BLPs; usually it's the Wikipedia article that is lax in omitting the word "assistant" or "associate". Abductive (reasoning) 19:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Noted British IPE Scholar. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Yes128.232.246.95 (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not good form to root for the notvotes you agree with, but I appreciate your enthusiasm. Abductive (reasoning) 19:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not established - no evidence of significant coverage by reliable sources. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:07, 4 November 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.