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) Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Raftopoulos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Delete for lack of notability. This article has been around since November 2011 with BLP sources and Notability tags added in December 2011 and no changes since then. While published, Brian Raftopoulos fails to have almost any coverage, much less substantial. He fails the general notability guidelines and fails to meet any of the academia options. Although the African Books Collective (and other book stores) repeat the publisher's blurb: a leading Zimbabwean scholar and activist, aside from his own works there is little to support that assessment. --Bejnar (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 21:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 21:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep GS h-index of 18? passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Query for @Xxanthippe:: What/where are the "independent reliable sources" required by WP:Prof#C1?

Click on the scholar link 2 inches above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Since when is Google scholar a reliable source? Where is the discussion of his impact? --Bejnar (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- evidence of independent reliable sources can be seen in the high number of citations of the work that Xxanthippe has pointed out. The number would be high for the field in any case. Given the systematic bias against researchers in Africa, it's particularly notable. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 08:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Mscuthbert: since when has systemic bias been a measure of notability? - Sitush (talk) 05:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• African journals are less likely to be indexed by indexing sites based in the US than US and European journals, suppressing h-indexes for scholars who work there. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This is one of those cases where WoS shows quite different results: 15 publications, 33 total cites, h-index 3. I think we should cease with any further discussion of "African bias" here. First, Raftopoulos seems to be a professor at University of the Western Cape, a large, modern institution in South Africa. Second, as far as the journals in which he has published according to WoS, none are "African". Rather, all are published by mainstream western concerns: J. South Af. Stud. and J East Af. Stud. are from Taylor & Francis, J. Hist. Soc. and Historian are from Wiley, African Affairs is an Oxford Journal, and J. Mod. Af. Stud. is a Cambridge Journal. Consequently, as far as resources and publishing outlets go, Raftopoulos does not seem to be at any disadvantage as compared to scholars in US, Europe, etc. and therefore should probably be judged by conventional standards. Agricola44 (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tawker (talk) 06:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep he's actually getting quite a few cites given the field he's publishing in. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2014 (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.