Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mickaella L. Perina

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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mickaella L. Perina[edit]

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

Worldcat shows no published books, and only a small number of papers. Google Scholar shows almost no citation, except to her thesis.This does not meet WP:PROF --the standard for fields like philosophy is several books by major publishers, or a large number of widely cited papers. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG either. DGG ( talk ) 09:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I created this entry as part of a hackathon. I am a new user to Wikipedia, so I am still familiarizing myself with how to edit articles, both in terms of content and the Wikipedia formatting. I found this academic on one of the Wikipedia:Wikiproject: Women in Red pages, and I wanted to contribute to Wikipedia's project of turning red links into blue ones. Though it is possible you may disagree with the credentials of the women appearing on these pages, or the logic of my contribution, I created this article as part of the effort to provide more information about women in academics that appear to be underrepresented on Wikipedia.

I have found a CV of Perina's through 2013 that includes her first book. I have not yet found a simple template for creating a "Published Works" list on her page, as many of the titles were published in French academic journals. Any help with this would be greatly appreciated! Though it is true that Perina has only published one book, she is contributing currently to the study of race and philosophy in academia through her programming and article publishing. Her contribution to study of race theory and philosophy in Martinique is one of the few scholarly contributions on that topic overall, which under the WP:PROF Criteria 1 seems fitting: "Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline." Drapered (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried to do some more research when I saw this entry go up in hopes I could help avoid AfD, and I did find her book, but the entry still seems TOOSOON to me. Drapered--and DGG could explain this better than I could as its one of his areas of expertise--but in order to satisfy that version of criteria #1, there needs to be evidence of "substantial" external recognition to show the concept pioneered is "significant". I.e. qualifying is about about recognition by others rather than about how much she's written, and I haven't been able to find that recognition--yet. Do keep in mind she may still qualify later; as associate professor, this is still pretty early career so it doesn't at all mean she'll never qualify. Still I'm really sorry, I know it's extremely discouraging to have one of your first entries nominated for AfD, and I can fully understand that a WiR list of redlinks seems like a safe bet, but unfortunately it's not always a sure thing (among other issues, not everyone realizes they're supposed to confirm a subject qualifies as wiki-notable before creating the redlink). I hope at least this info can be helpful going forward. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Grateful Reply Innisfree987 Thank you for your insight on the qualifier of recognition in the field versus overall proliferation of published books. Even if this page gets deleted, I will keep that guideline in mind in the future. I have seen Perina mentioned in the "Thank You" sections of numerous other published books in her academic field (not that that represents any physical contributions, but notes to me her impact on this academic community). I appreciate the need for more substantial references, though, and I will do my best to find more if the article is deleted. I am very grateful for the helpful discourse as well as code. Drapered (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2017 (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.