Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margot Horspool

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. It doesn't look there's disagreement that she satisfies NACADEMIC #4, which is all she needs to warrant an article about her. Bbb23 (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Margot Horspool[edit]

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

Margot Horspool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of notability.Grotius2018 (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I offer no opinion of my own at this time. @Grotius2018: For future nominations, please follow all instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall talk 07:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 07:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 07:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 07:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment it looks like she co-authored a highly cited book European Union Law, at least 250 citations in 7 years seems like a lot to me in this field. But apart from that I cannot find much, so it looks like she fails GNG and NPROF but maybe the book could be notable? --hroest 15:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Her European Union Law Book has 10 editions, since 1997[1], and doing a finer google search using "syllabus" as a primary search key, shows it in use in American, and European college classrooms. This seems to be a seminal text in the field of jurisprudence in regards to European Law, which would qualify for Academic Notability. I do believe this stub could use expansion in regards to noting the book as her key Academic contribution. Syllabus Ref [2], [3],[4] Camofclay (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Camofclay usually a single book / event does not make a subject notable per WP:BLP1E but an article about the book may be warranted. --hroest 15:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hannes Röst, the argument by Camofclay is that the subject meets WP:NACADEMIC #4. Applying WP:BLP1E to this situation is a stretch. ~Kvng (talk) 13:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:BLP1E refers to situations where an individual is notable for a single event without further ongoing coverage. A textbook that goes through 10 editions, with over 250 citations in other works, is by its very definition ongoing. Hyperion35 (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.worldcat.org/title/european-union-law/oclc/1088794987/editions?start_edition=91&sd=desc&referer=di&se=yr&editionsView=true&fq=
  2. ^ https://law.ubalt.edu/academics/experiential/studyabroad/curacao/Intro%20to%20Eco%20Law%20of%20EU%20Syllabus.pdf
  3. ^ https://www.keiabroad.org/documents/ireland/syllabus/law/EU%20Law%20II.pdf
  4. ^ https://www.hse.ru/data/2016/12/13/1117092651/program-1507395411-wotH_O_SfR.pdf
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:NACADEMIC #4 based on authorship and long-term maintenance of widely used text. ~Kvng (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At the end of the day, an article about a living person is only appropriate if there are independent secondary sources available from which to construct a biography of the person in question. Having looked for them, I don't think they exist here. Being the co-author of a textbook is surely an indicator of notability, but ultimately what we need are sources about the person. If there are reviews of the book, we could surely create an article about it. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NACADEMIC #4. Unlesss... Creator created this as their first article and is also the nominator. Grotius2018, is there something that we are missing? gidonb (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to her textbook, a Google Scholar search also finds about a dozen or so academic papers with Margot Horspool as the author, there may be more with M Horspool but there are authors in very unrelated subjects with the same last name. A search for just Margot Horspool in Google Scholar returns over 300 hits, which would be consistent with the claim that her book has over 250 cites in other papers. I agree that there is some difficulty finding sources that talk about her, but to some extent this is in part because there are so many search hits to her work or citing her work. Hyperion35 (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think one coauthored book is enough for WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR notability, regardless of being well-cited. The book may be notable, and if so we can redirect to an article about the book. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not an easy one, but when we boil this down, we have a co-authorship of a significant work on European law and a number of articles and contributions to EU law works. However, there is no independent coverage that I can find at all about her. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:ACADEMIC no. 4. Furius (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The criterion is WP:PROF which does not require passing GNG, so the comments dealing with independent secondary sources is totally irrleevant--this is a SNG that hasbeen universally accepted here for the past 12 or 13 years as entirely separate. (In the period before this was accepted, the third party references to the work were often proposed as the secondary sources, but this was decided was a much too broad criterion, essentially considering every assistant professor as notable ) The part she meets is one of the lesser used parts, author of a very widely used textbook in the field, because such works do have a very substantial influence. DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep consensus is that she passes WP:NPROF. ——Serial 13:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:16, 24 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Margot_Horspool&oldid=1025665810"