Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerry L. Ainsworth

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. Septagram's !vote does count, but only once -not twice. That said, there's overwhelming consensus that the subject is not yet notable. No objection to re-creation once he meets the guidelines. Am happy to userfy the content StarM 23:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry L. Ainsworth

Per reasons already outlined at its talk page, the article gives a misleading impression that the subject has been notable for the study of Mesoamerican cultures, when all available evidence suggests the opposite. Subject is a self-described independent scholar and author of a self-published book, written on a topic completely unrelated to their field of qualification. Said book promotes theory at the fringes of archaeological research, and despite implications in the article neither the author nor his book have been cited, reviewed or even noticed by archaeologists active in the field. Other than one or two polite book reviews in LDS publications, cannot find evidence that the author or his book have made much of an impact to the development of Book of Mormon apologetics, either. In short, taking away from the article the inaccurate claims to any expertise or significant contributions to archaeological research, there's nothing really left to show why or how he's notable for inclusion in wikipedia. If he can be regarded as a notable figure in LDS circles, then there'd need to be demonstration that he/his work are cited, quoted, discussed, etc by others. I haven't been able to find evidence for this; in archaeology/Mesoamericanist circles he's a definite non-starter. cjllw ʘ TALK 00:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references. Reads like a resume. The article's author or authors need to read up on the proper methods of establishing notability and how to do encyclopedic writing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable independent source to establish notability. Fails WP:ACADEMIC.--Boffob (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google Scholar search as author returned 1 hit, a 1977 publication, and no citations. Google News search retuned zero hits. ASC search returned zero hits. There is a review of his 2000 book on the site of a center for religious studies at BYU [1], and it is not very positive on the scholarly value of the book, which may explain the lack of citations – a quote: “It is unfortunate that Ainsworth pays so little attention to the work done by other LDS researchers.”--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per the searches done by Eric. Schuym1 (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per a detailed nom and the comments of talk above. As far as I can tell, the subject fails both WP:PROF and WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Golly gee folks, I didn't expect such. . . passion when I crated this page. There is very little about Dr. Ainsworth's academic work on the web but positive reviews of his books and theories, but on Wikipedia, all the professionals of Dr. Ainsworth's field have come out in force and ~~incinerated~~ commented on his theories. This is the reason why I believe this article really needs to remain is so novice people in this field (like myself) can find a balanced factual article discussing alternative views of archeology as not to be academically misled. If this subject is too hot for Wikipedia to handle objectively, then there will be gaps(black holes) that people cannot find reliable information about archeology, which kind of negates one of the main strengths of Wikipedia (in depth coverage of a field). Recently, I looked up the Bosnian Pyramids and found that informative when professionals comment on others theories.Again I vote to keep this articleSeptagram (talk) 05:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, the problem is that an author or an artist can self-publish the greatest book in the world. But in order to be notable and to justify inclusion in an encyclopedia it has to generate wider interest. You need references to articles covering this author. The problem isn't that it's too hot, but that it isn't hot enough. Good luck. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and above additions, especially Eric Yurken's. ~Pip 2 andahalf 06:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A careful search of Web of Science (search on "Author=(Ainsworth J*)" and sorting on sub-categories related to topics mentioned in the article AND search on "Author=(Ainsworth JL)") returned no hits – evidently none of the subject's work appears in the refereed literature. Although the layout and content of the article clearly argue for inclusion on the basis of research contributions, e.g. "...involved in countless archaeological expeditions throughout Mexico, attended numerous scholarly conferences...", there are none to be found. Also note that the book described in the article appears to be self-published. With all due respect, the article seems to describe someone who is really more of an archaeological tourist than a researcher. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
delete Eric Yurken summarizes the problem, fails WP:PROF & WP:BIO. Nom's concerns that the article is misleading puffery seem totally valid. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Eric Yurken. --Crusio (talk) 09:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Eric Yurken, I did a regular Google search on "Jerry L. Ainsworth" and came up with several pages of results concerning his several books and his person. Google Scholar search returned 3 hits.Septagram (talk) 05:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Septagram has already voted keep above. Nsk92 (talk) 05:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Septagram's vote doesn't count because s/he is the creator of the article. Schuym1 (talk) 05:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you are completely wrong on this one. Everybody's votes count, including the article's creator. Nsk92 (talk) 06:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that they didn't. Sorry. Schuym1 (talk) 06:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, you are bothy wrong because AFD is not a vote; it's a discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's no coverage of his work -- Whpq (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2008 (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.