Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Arnott (academic)

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. (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Arnott (academic)

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

1) Poorly referenced article. 2) Looking at the advice on WP:ACADEMIC, I don't think he's sufficiently notable for an article - he is an honorary professor[1] for his teaching. Potential conflict of interest: I know him. RupertMillard (Talk) 18:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of "His career and work has been personally featured in the Lancet (“Lifelines” in No. 9313, 6 April 2002).' (From his bio at the Royal Society of Medicine). It seems he was a Reader, not Professor, but that does not imply he isn't notable. Since 2 of the 3 bios at Birmingham call him Professor, it was a not unreasonable mistake. He is listed there as the author of several books, but he is only the editor. 2 are conference proceedings, The Archaeology of Medicine (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2002), The Genius of Erasmus Darwin (Aldershot:Ashgate, 2005). Third, is as one of 3 principal contribs: Trepanation: History, Discovery, Theory (Liss, 2003), All held in relatively small number of libraries (on the order of 100) but it's a narrow specialty, and I'm going by Worldcat, which is mainly US. There are 3rd party reviews of them all: Darwin in Brit J Hist of Sci & Isis ; Archeol. of Med. in Medical History ; Trepanation in Bull. Hist.Med, J Hist. Behaviorial sciences & J Hist. Neurosciences; By our BIO standards these reviews are sufficient to show notability as an author. DGG (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep solely on the basis of Lancet piece? I'd not seen it before but despite what it says in the RSM bio it does not feature his career and work. It's a one column interview: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08207-7 (For those who can't access it, it has his one sentence replies to the questions "Who was your most influential teacher, and why? What would be your advice to a newly qualified doctor? What alternative therapies have you tried? Did they work? What apart from your partner is the passion of your life? Do politics, spirituality, or religion play an important part in your life? What is your greatest fear? What do you think is the most exciting field of science at the moment? What part of your work gives you the most pleasure? Where were you in your sibling order, and what did you gain or lose as a result?") Looking at the article for a second time, I see that it's hardly linked to[2], I wonder if it's autobiographical[3] and I see that parts of it are lifted verbatim from the pages on Birmingham University website (eg. first sentence.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RupertMillard (talk • contribs) 07:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That he was selected for the interview by this journal is clear evidence of notability. That an article is not linked to in Wikipedia is not reason to delete, neither is autobio. The article did need cleanup, and I began that. DGG (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe that by being a fellow in the Royal Historical Society he meets WP:PROF criterion #3 (elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association; fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor).--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I checked the Society’s web site, and he is indeed listed as a Fellow. However, there are apparently a few thousand fellows, so fellowship is not as selective as I thought.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Fellowship is not a great honour (you need another (2?) fellows to recomend and have to pay,) but thousands is still a very small number, as 1000s graduate each year. Note that Readers are an old fashioned position, and if younger he would probably have gone directly to prof at UK uni. But i weak keep anyway based on the number of high level posts.Yobmod (talk) 10:41, 5 February 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.