Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carol Braun Pasternack

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Braun Pasternack

[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)

No assertion of notability in the article. Seems to fail WP:NACADEMIC. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Noted academic medievalist - ex department head - with well recognised and serious publications - a leading figure in her field. (Msrasnw (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]
"department head" does sound, but you need evidence that she is a "leading specialist". The text so far is a collection of blurbs from various reviews each professor can collect. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question. What is our position on edited volumes for NPROF/NAUTHOR purposes? She co-edited two notable books—Vox Intexta and Gender and Difference in the Middle Ages (plenty of reviews of both on Scholar)—and wrote one notable monograph (reviews in article atm). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally they don't count for much. Certainly not anywhere near as much as authored books. Two authored books with multiple reviews would be enough for WP:AUTHOR for me. For someone to be notable through their work as an editor of edited volumes, I'd want to see a lot more than that, but it's hard to set numerical thresholds. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Decent GS citations for a low-cited field passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep. There's only one authored book here, most of the other "decent GS citations" are for her edited volumes, and the obituary appears to be the paid kind in a small local newspaper, but I think there's enough other in-depth and independent sourcing to save this from WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The overall consensus seems to be the subject is notable and in the tradition of Wikipedia in times like this. when there is some doubt, move to a solid keep. scope_creep^Talk 11:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She was evidently involved in her field to a good extent, and the article as written has some good sourcing. Raymond033 (talk) 21:01, 18 September 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.