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) ——Serial ^# 16:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steven L. Tuck (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)

I'm afraid this article does not make any claim that would make its subject pass WP:NACADEMIC - yes, he has won awards, but they are all on university level with the exception of the one from the AIA, which I do not think is a prestigious enough award. When you ignore his own works, his pages on the websites of various organisations, calendar events and award proof, the only reference left is an article at Atlas Obscura - which is user-generated. In summary, seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. PJvanMill (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Week keep: Most of what I could find about him concerned his own publications; there are some blurbs from reviews of his History of Roman Art on Amazon.com, but I don't think they establish much. Most of his citations in other books seem to be for photographs he's taken. He has written chapters for at least two anthologies: A Companion to the Flavian Age of Ancient Rome, and The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Rome, of which the latter at least suggests a degree of academic recognition, and makes me think that there's at least some evidence of notability. But beyond this, the problem is that he's not really discussed by independent sources: nearly everything cited in this article is the subject's own work. It needs independent sources. However, I'm not satisfied that the criteria for deletion have been met at this point. Would like to hear what experienced editors in this field have to say. P Aculeius (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not pass inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I disagree that the AIA award isn't prestigious enough. It's a national award, from a notable academic society, given to a single recipient each year; that's enough for WP:PROF#C2. Regardless, Tuck's textbook A History of Roman Art has been reviewed in multiple independent reliable sources [1][2][3], meeting WP:NAUTHOR, and according to this article in Classical World is widely used in teaching Roman art history, meeting WP:PROF#C4. Giving Rhodes' James F. Ruffin Lecture also indicates significant impact per WP:PROF#C1. – Joe (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit, there's definitely more out there than I thought. I can see NAUTHOR under criterion 4c, but NPROF criterion 4 requires several influential textbooks. I'm not sure I agree with you about NPROF criterion 2, as it says Examples may include certain awards, honors and prizes of notable academic societies, of notable foundations and trusts (emphasis mine). And while the James F. Ruffin lecture may indicate significant impact, I don't think it's sufficient evidence on its own. In summary, I think NAUTHOR is your strongest argument. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: Skimpy for WP:AUTHOR. Holds a chair, along with the national award (See: WP:ANYBIO #1), which is a requirement for WP:NACADEMIC (#2 and #5). However, the actual criteria for inclusion is significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, which is severely lacking certainly for a BLP, and I don't think any specific criteria over-rides this. Good stories though. One book, one award, and self published material needs more sourcing. This is where Wikipedia:NEXIST would be a good argument, -- Otr500 (talk) 09:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant WP:AUTHOR and WP:NACADEMIC, not N:AUTHOR and N:PROF. Changed accordingly, please revert me if I'm wrong. Don't think he meets #5 ("The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon"). As I read it, this is for something like the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics or similar appointments; I don't think that "Head of Classics at Miami University" is similarly prestigious (note that neither the department, nor the College of Liberal Arts have their own article, or even a paragraph in the article on Miami University). Not sure that the "Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching Award" satisfies No. 2 either. I think his strongest case is under #1, based on his publications. Having read the other comments above, I concur with your conclusion of weak keep. P Aculeius (talk) 12:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I do still stand by my nomination. WP:NACADEMIC explicitly admits that it "sets the bar fairly low", so, given that Tuck does not pass it (I do not think he meets any of the eight criteria), I can only conclude that he is not notable enough. I think we can all agree he is an edge case, though. PJvanMill (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Award winning, highly referenced, department head. Geo Swan (talk) 04:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be deceived by the number of footnotes. Each of the current references is worthless for notability. PJvanMill (talk) 09:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Week keep, particularly per Joe's arguments. Why Geo Swan would claim "award winning, highly referenced" is not clear to me: these statements are obviously not true, exaggerated, unverified, etc. And "department head" is not among the criteria for notability. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Week keep, mainly per Joe and the textbook - we are ungenerous to the writers of popular textbooks imo. Johnbod (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Johnbod, and I agree with your point. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ungenerous to academics who focus on teaching/outreach over research in general, I would say. Prompted by this AfD, I've proposed requiring just one textbook in PROF, which others in this discussion might want to comment on. – Joe (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2020 (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.