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 as nn-bio. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Reynolds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I prod-ed this article, with the summary: "Article is obvious vanity (or hagiography), books have seven-figure Amazon sales ranks, no evidence of passing the professor test". Prod was disputed: see comments here. I let the matter rest at the time. A few days ago, an anon added an {advert} tag here which was reverted here. I restored the tag, which was removed with the comments made here. The page is nonetheless clearly promotional in tone. The books mentioned have 7-figure Amazon ranks (see here here) but one is currently at 176,000 (see here) so on the face of it the subject fails the author test. The page shows no evidence of passing the professor test. A matter for a community decision, I think, but in my opinion delete as a nn-bio. (Note, FWIW, that the creator, User:Gregorthebug is a single purpose account. See here.) AndyJones 20:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Regardless of how many books he's written, there are no sources to back anything up. If this page is kept, it needs to be trimmed down extensively- I can count at least eight problems regarding WP:NPOV in the introduction alone. --Wafulz 20:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete massively non-srouced, and unverifiable; and would totally need to be re-written (agree w/Wafulz) to even be a stub. SkierRMH 21:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For all the reasons listed above. The entry just seems as if it is an excuse to provide (lengthy) book reviews for a non-notable author. Meghann 23:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Apparent vanity, doesn't pass WP:PROF in my view. -- Rbellin|Talk 05:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Reynolds is one of today's most important Shakespeare scholars. You need only search his name on Google to figure this out. He easily passes the professor test. Something seems wrong here.Stephen Todd 09:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that User:Stephen Todd is also a single purpose account. See here. AndyJones 17:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.

Dear Wiki Contributors,

Thank you for the enormously productive responses to our entry on Reynolds. We did not understand what the problems were with the entry, and no one was spelling them out for us. However, the many responses here made it very clear, and very clear what we needed to do to revise -- really rewrite -- the entry. This is what we have done:

1. In response to the criticism that the entry was way too long and like a book review, we have cut down the descriptions of Reynolds’ work to less than half -- leaving just enough to summarize the basic ideas. I think we just got too attached to our write-ups and could not see how they were overkill.

2. We have removed all qualitative and evaluative language from our descriptions -- to ensure WP:NPOV.

3. We have provided sources to back everything up, to demonstrate WP:PROF.

4. We have included quotations, both positive and negative, from reviews of Reynolds’ work, as can be seen in the entries of other scholars.

5. We have included a section listing recent honours Reynolds received.

6. Further to WP:PROF, note that: 1) Reynolds is seen as an expert in his field, 2) by independent academics in the field; 3) his work is well-known; 4) his work is widely cited, 5) Reynolds has come up with a new concept -- a critical theory and methodology: “transversal poetics,” and 6) has received two notable awards/honours for his work. From this it is clear that Reynolds passes every category of the WP:PROF and not just one as required: “If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are definitely notable.”

7. We don’t understand the issue with regard to Amazon’s record of book sales. Reynolds numbers are similar to those of most academics. Most sales of books by academics are to libraries.

We hope that these improvements are enough to keep the entry. Please let us know if we need to do more. For sure, the entry is only improving. Thank you Gregorthebug 19:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. To Gregorthebug, if this article is going to have any chance of surviving, all the haigiography has to go, all the reviews, all the incomprehensible gibberish that currently summarises his books. A brief summary of his qualifications and publications, with one paragraph per book that the lay reader can understand, might be sufficient. As it stands, it's irretrievable. Tevildo 22:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• To Tevildo, thank you for the constructive criticism you have provided regarding how the entry could be changed productively so as to have it benefit the wikicommunity as a whole. So far, I have removed one of the pictures of Reynolds, and also per your suggestion have removed all the reviews. I would only like to note that the reviews section was added during our last change (Dec 24 2006) so as to attempt to improve upon the suggestions made by Wafulz and SkierRMH that the article was unverifiable and massively non-sourced. Nevertheless, the reviews section is now deleted, and moved to the external links sections in the case that other users would appreciate double-checking the legitimacy and sources of Reynolds' books.

Also, I plan to make changes to the summaries of his books. Their length will be shortened, and their language made more accessible to the wikicommunity as a whole. Despite appearances, I thought the language appropriately reflected the academic community in which Reynolds' work is engaged with, but upon further reflection you have made clear how the language could be improved so as to benefit all readers of this entry.

Hopefully our good faith effort to improve this article will generate more positive criticism and suggestions on how to make this a valuable wikientry for the wikicommunity. Sincerely, Gregorthebug 20:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If this is a page that needs work, then it would be better to just edit it or mark it for cleanup, along with many pages on Wikipedia that are in the improvement process. Everybody should feel comfortable editing it, as this is a public work. As for notability, this seems somewhat tricky to gauge to me. I should disclose that I do know some of Reynolds' students, which is why I've been following this page. However, I don't have any personal interest in keeping this page or not. Gccwang 22:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep. A UCI professor with an extensive track record is notable. Amazon rank is a wrongheaded measure for specialized academic publications. The article does look like hagiography, but that is an argument for cleaning, not for deletion. I have no dog in this fight, and I don't admire the sort of stuff Mr Reynolds does, but I think he's clearly a valid subject for an encyclopedia article.--OinkOink 23:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• To all those concerned,

Please note that book summaries have been reduced to one paragraph in length, and their language has, hopefully, been ameliorated in response to the concerns raised above. We hope that these changes have gone far in eliminating the hagiographic content of the entry, so that the entry, as a number of wikiusers have noted above, can now be considered for cleaning and editting, and not deletion. (also, we're responsible for making the last set of changes on 02:36, 27 December 2006, but forgot to sign in) Gregorthebug 02:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly richly sourced. Perhaps that's the problem: I agree it may still need to be edited down a little. However, without understanding (or necessarily caring) about what this chap is on about, he is clearly making his own distinctive contributions to critical theory and to theatre, and has garnered recognition within academia, and merits retention, in my view. Shawn in Montreal 02:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Would an encyclopedia say "Transversal theory is, in these early works, delineated through an analysis of its manifestation in the emergent theatrical phenomena of early modern English culture"? This is an admirable degree of precision for a scholarly journal--where the audience is already specifically familiar with the source texts--but it is nigh-unparseable to the layman. 71.57.40.110 00:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, but that's not at issue here. This isn't about whether the article needs to be edited and improved, which as you point out, it does -- as does most of the stuff on WP. This is about whether to delete entirely.Shawn in Montreal 00:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The popularity of his books by the general population is of little relevance; he is an academic, not a pop science writer. Given the number of references, he seems to be fairly well-known in certain circles. Owen 09:12, 29 December 2006 (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.