Talk:J. Arch Getty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template. If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page. If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

[edit] Notability

It seems to me that an academic with published work and books is notable enough to warrant an article. His work seems to be standard in the field, e.g. [1]--Atavi 20:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the notability notice, since no-one has responded to the point I've raised.--Atavi 10:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:Notability, you need some outside independent publications about this person to justify that he is notable. I could not find any. To simply have publications is insufficient. A lot of people have a lot of professional publications. See Wikipedia:Notability (people). You provided a personal web page in Leeds University. It does not qualify as a reliable source.Biophys 00:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a little awkward for me, because I don't really care for Getty or his ideas, but I do think he is notable so here it goes.

He is described as a "noted historian" here:[2]

More importantly, his books are part of the curriculum of many universities, other than UCLA and UC Riverside.

Here's a list of links

http://webprod1.leeds.ac.uk/banner/dynmodules.asp?Y=200708&M=HIST-5830M

http://www.shef.ac.uk/history/current_students/undergraduate/modules/level_3/hst3027-8.html http://www.shef.ac.uk/history/current_students/undergraduate/modules/hst3055.html

http://www.uga.edu/history/syllabi_pdf/HIST_7323_robertsd_0805.pdf

http://www.pbs.org/redfiles/kgb/deep/kgb_deep_biblio.htm http://www.ceu.hu/crc/Syllabi/alumni/history/bashkuev1.html

http://fass.kingston.ac.uk/undergraduate/modules/module_full.php?code=HS3148 http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/historyold/undergrad/modules/hi107/autumnseminars/ http://www.hist.cam.ac.uk/undergraduate/part2/2007-2008/paper7.pdf http://www.american.edu/cas/hist/faculty/syllabii/lohr_345_f06.doc http://www.humanities.uci.edu/history/ucihp/resources/biblio10.php http://polisci.lsa.umich.edu/documents/syllibi/2007W/PS389.006W07Suny.pdf http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Political-Science/17-584Spring-2003/Readings/index.htm http://gozips.uakron.edu/~mcarley/Hist634.html http://reg.ucsc.edu/soc/aci/winter2000/poli.html http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/200/mourebib.htm

--Atavi 10:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

So, your point is that " The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course, if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works, if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature[1]. "[Wikipedia:Notability_%28academics%29]." Then he perhaps qualify.Biophys 11:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)