Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Martin (anthropologist)

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 per WP:SNOW. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Martin (anthropologist)

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

No notability asserted Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An article for an academic that states the person is a professor and describes publications IS making a statement of notability, so the nomination is incorrect. The question is whether that notability is adequate. Once reviews of her books had been added the nominator should have done some checking before AfD. Her Guggenhim Fellowship is one indicator of notability. The high citation rates for her books is another. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@StarryGrandma: Are there any reliable sources about her? I found a lot of her works, but almost nothing about her herself. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TenPoundHammer. Articles about professors are covered by WP:PROF which looks at how much impact their work has, and their positions and awards. see the criteria used. We don't expect to see the kinds of biographical coverage that many public figures have. StarryGrandma (talk) 07:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A GS search shows several publications cited more than 100 times - which should pass WP:PROF#C1 (a guideline independent of WP:GNG). Also held a named chair at Johns Hopkins (WP:PROF#C5). WorldCat is helpful as well, as there are multiple books held in several hundred libraries. It looks like she passes WP:AUTHOR on the basis of book reviews of The Woman in the Body and Bipolar Expeditions. EricEnfermero (Talk) 07:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep because no valid argument for deletion has been advanced. The article doesn't have to "assert" notability. It's up to the nominator to assess the subject's notability, including checking against relevant SNGs, before presenting an argument for deletion. In this case that doesn't seem to have happened, as per EricEnfermero the subject clearly passes WP:PROF and probably WP:AUTHOR. – Joe (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, per above. I contested the original prod and added critical reviews of her book, establishing WP:NPROF notability. Υπογράφω (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep on procedural grounds as no valid deletion rationale has been advanced (and it's pretty clear that WP:PROF is met anyway). XOR'easter (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several works cited >1K conclusively satisfies PROF c1. Agricola44 (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.