Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Haas

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. ✗plicit 23:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Haas[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)

Submitting as AfD in response to recommendation from RfC. Subject of this biography of a living person does not appear to meet notability guidelines for academics or authors. As an academic, Dr. Haas appears to be accomplished, but no sources indicate she is substantially more notable than a typical professor at a research university in her field. As an author, she has contributed to three academic books that appear to only have received mention in the associated professional journals, which, again, could be expected of any professor at a research university. nf utvol (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Social science. TJMSmith (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:AUTHOR based per the multiple scholarly reviews of her works. TJMSmith (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As well as the pass of WP:AUTHOR already stated in my earlier unprod, she has Google Scholar citation counts of 390 ("The impact of taking parental leave on fathers' participation..."), 356 ("The impact of organizational culture on men's use of parental leave..."), 325 (Equal parenthood and social policy...), 271 ("Fathers' rights to paid parental leave in the Nordic countries..."), etc. These high citation counts give her a likely pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a pass of WP:NAUTHOR criteria #3 due to the multiple independant significant reviews of her work, even without looking at citations. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Comment WP:AUTHOR is not the appropriate criteria to use here, since all of Dr. Haas's work appears limited to academic writing. Regarding the reviews cited as evidence for keeping, quoting from WP:ACADEMIC:
"In some disciplines there are review publications that review virtually all refereed publications in that discipline. For example, in mathematics, Mathematical Reviews, also known as MathSciNet, and Zentralblatt MATH fall into that category. The mere fact that an article or a book is reviewed in such a publication does not serve towards satisfying Criterion 1. However, the content of the review and any evaluative comments made there may be used for that purpose."
So, the existence of the reviews is *not* enough to meet the criteria. Regarding citation counts, Dr. Haas does *not* appear in the Highly Cited Researchers list, though, while it's a good rubric, it is not all inclusive and the lack of inclusion is not criteria for exclusion necessarily. And while those numbers do seem to be high on the face, when compared to other authors and similar articles in the field they are pretty average. For instance, when looking at the related articles of the first article referenced above, "Impact of parental leave...," the range of citations is from under 100 to over 700. nf utvol (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I struck your "delete" as you have already provided an opinion as nominator and are not allowed to !vote twice in an AfD. In response to your comment here, this is an encyclopedia of everything, not of everything except academia. There is no exception in AUTHOR for academic work. The application of AUTHOR to academic works is necessary to allow coverage of academics in subjects where book publication is the norm and journal publications and citations are uncommon (although in this case Haas has both). As for your listing of databases like MathSciNet that provide reviews of all publications in a field: that's not how published reviews in individual academic journals work, so the text you quote is about something irrelevant to this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for striking that! I meant to remove it before I posted but messed it up. I completely agree that AUTHOR does not necessarily exclude academics, however in this particular case the subject is entirely covered by the guidelines brought up in ACADEMIC. It seems to me that applying AUTHOR to every published and reviewed professor or researcher at a university would result in almost every single one being published, which doesn't make for a great notability guideline. I would also argue that my note about the review publications is, in fact, still appropriate since the journals listed in the article appear to all have routine reviews of most books published in the field. nf utvol (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - The note about review publications is about databases which index everything. A journal that selects a few dozen books per year and reviews only those is not a database that indexes everything. It is selective. Unlike many non-academic review publications, they do not even review everything specifically sent to them for review; many of these journals have a "books received" column listing a much larger set of books that they have received but decided not to review. Nothing in ACADEMIC covers academics whose scholarly contribution is entirely through books and is entirely evaluated through book reviews (which is an accurate description of many academic disciplines). It is a loophole in ACADEMIC, but one that is adequately covered by AUTHOR. Your made-up and nonexistent rules about how academics are a special exception to AUTHOR would eliminate that. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - There's no reason to be rude...I just do not think that the AUTHOR guidelines are appropriate here, and I've simply tried to explain why. On the other hand, you're clearly free to disagree and explain why I'm not correct. I appreciate your input and insight, I absolutely encourage it, but I'd also appreciate it if you didn't just casually toss out the accusation that I'm trying to make up rules, because that is not what I'm doing. nf utvol (talk) 22:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nfutvol I was surprised to see WP:NAUTHOR applied in this way when I first started participating in AfDs too, but you'd be surprised how many academics even in "book fields" don't have 2+ books with 2+ reviews. It does actually work pretty well. I don't see a WP:NAUTHOR pass here either, though. -- asilvering (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No position on WP:NPROF #1, since I'm not sure whether these citation counts are high for the field or not. But this is not a WP:NAUTHOR pass, at least not based on the sources currently in the article. Only one of the books, Equal Parenthood and Social Policy, is a monograph. The other one with footnoted reviews is a co-edited collection of scholarly essays. -- asilvering (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm persuaded that the subject's publications have been highly cited. The case for wiki-notability by the multiple books with multiple reviews apiece standard is weaker, since as noted above, one of the reviewed books is a co-edited collection. That's a lesser investment of time and effort than writing or even co-writing a book, but it's not nothing, either. Between the reviews and the strong citation profile, I think keeping the article is justified. XOR'easter (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to satisfy academic notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:Nfutvol - Do you have a problem with female professors named Haas? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha, no, though I see how it could appear that way. I did a GA review for an article that led down a rabbit hole of professors that appeared on the surface to be of questionable notability. I promise I don't have a weird thing about people named Haas! nf utvol (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NACADEMIC. Her books and "articles" (some of which are book chapters but I see them as the same thing) get cites in the 250-320 range. That's sufficiently high for what is a narrow topic of parental leave in Sweden. Lamona (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per keepers. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: @TJMSmith: Due to an error I have corrected in Special:Diff/1107260123, Enterprisey's delsort script did not actually list the nomination at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science. The nomination has now been listed there. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks GeoffreyT2000! TJMSmith (talk) 11:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfies WP:NACADEMIC Bruxton (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2022 (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.