Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Catherine Hof Blinks

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 04:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Catherine Hof Blinks[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not clear that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. The sources in the article do not demonstrate significant coverage. This source is an obituary of her son. This source exists because the family paid money to endow a scholarship, and is therefore too closely connected to the subject to be counted. These two sources are indexes and do not rise to the level of significant coverage: [1], [2]. And the final source, In Celebration of the Curious Mind, is a book of poetry written by her friends to celebrate her 80th bithday by a minor publishing company that occasionally publishes small irrelevant personal projects of this kind which are paid for by the authors. 4meter4 (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Blinks was a marine biologist who was also noted for her research work on prehistoric textiles. 4meter4, the book in question that you disparage is a festschrift, an academic book published in honor of a respected colleague. The contents are not poems but scholarly papers. The author of the first paper is the archaeologist Junius Bird; other authors include anthropologists and museum curators. The publisher was Interweave Press, a major publisher of books and magazines on crafts. (Some days it seems as if the world of topics that interest women is not supposed to be included in Wikipedia.) I've put two articles about her in the Further reading section.

Sigh, the book in question includes images of textiles with poetry which were contributed by colleagues and people who knew her (yes some of them notable). At least that's the description of the book in reviews and websites that are selling it. There are no academic papers within the book to my knowledge (also not clear from the link you provided which describes its contents as images of textiles). From what I've read in online comments on the book, it is essentially a compilation of images like a coffee table book with poetry. But I take your point that there may be more independence in its publication than I originally realized. Regardless, none of the sources you added show significant coverage or how this person meets WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NACADEMIC, or WP:SIGCOV. What policy is supporting your keep vote and with what references? Neither source you added discusses her work as a marine biologist as both are related to textiles. An article in Spin Off, a textile trade magazine, doesn't seem significant enough as a source to indicate notability.4meter4 (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update, after digging further, I agree that there is scholarly writing in the publication. However, aside from one piece written by Hof Blinks, they are all independent of her work. It's a nice way to honor a colleague, but I'm not sure how much notability it lends to the subject. On it's own its not enough to establish WP:SIGCOV or WP:NACADEMIC.4meter4 (talk) 23:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4, having a Festschrift is considered an automatic pass of NPROF per criterion 1c. JoelleJay (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There appears to be some significant coverage in We Two Together (p. 227) (as Anne Hof), but the Google preview is very limited. And I suspect that she has an entry in the Biographical Dictionary of Botanists Represented in the Hunt Institute Portrait Collection, but I'm unable to find an on-line copy. pburka (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you can confirm that she does, I will withdraw the nomination. We just need something to prove she meets one of the criteria at NACADEMIC.4meter4 (talk) 23:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the In Celebration... book is indeed a Festschrift published in an academic press then she meets NPROF C1(c). JoelleJay (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the festschrift were within her main academic discipline, marine biology and/or botany, I would agree. It isn’t. It’s in textiles. I wouldn’t consider a publishing company dedicated to arts and crafts a major academic press either. Interweave is a publishing company of crafts, mostly how to guides for hobbyists in addition to their magazine. https://craftindustryalliance.org/interweave-faces-an-uncertain-future-its-impact-reverberates/ 4meter4 (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Festschrift establishes notability. I have also done considerable reorganization and citation to bring the article more closely into line with Wikipedia style. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 03:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to the article, her focus on textiles was not arts and crafts, it was experimental archaeology, i.e. she "was also known for her work on historic and pre-historical textiles," so the festschrift appears to establish notability per WP:NPROF. Beccaynr (talk) 03:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Based on the excellent work of Mary Mark Ockerbloom I think it's pretty clear she passes WP:SIGCOV. As a result I am withdrawing the nomination. Thank you all for participating; especially to those who improved the article. Best.4meter4 (talk) 04:14, 11 August 2021 (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.