Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shira Tarrant

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. (non-admin closure) Mr. Guye (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shira Tarrant

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

Fails the general notability guideline. Claim to fame is her associate professorship (unclear if current) at California State University, Long Beach, as well as her blogging. Google News search finds no significant coverage of the subject in independent sources, only passing mentions – generally only quotes relating to her field of expertise, as you'd expect from an associate professor at a (reasonably large) public university. Doesn't meet WP:NACADEMICS, either – no evidence that her "research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". Article history suggests the article was created for promotional purposes and/or as a CV, possibly by Tarrant herself or one of her students. IgnorantArmies (talk) 05:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (academics) seem relevant criteria here. I've gone through the citations in the article, may of which were out of date urls, and updated them so that it's possible to get a better assessment of her significance. Her works are reviewed in journals; she is quoted in popular press articles from at least three countries as well as referred to in books by academics; she is currently an associate professor in the Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Department at California State University, Long Beach, who refer to her on their faculty page as a "nationally recognized expert on feminism, sexual politics, pop culture, and masculinity." Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledged all of those things in my rationale for deletion. Being quoted isn't enough to meet the WP:GNG – the article actually has to be about her. She's an academic, of course she's going to be published in journals – again, not enough for a Wikipedia article, otherwise every associate professor would have one. The blurb on her university's faculty page is certainly not an independent source, and was quite possibly written by Tarrant herself. IgnorantArmies (talk) 06:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As an authority on gender politics, Tarrant is a prolific commentator in national (Forbes, The Daily Beast, CNN, NBC) and international media (The Telegraph, The Globe and Mail, French Morning). In this vein she meets WP:NACADEMICS #7, as having made "substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." The subject also meets WP:GNG as the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Inside Higher Ed and sections of this book provide significant coverage of her and more in-depth coverage can be found in interviews she has given: [1][2][3] gobonobo ⁺ ^c 19:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NACADEMICS 7. I don't quite accept the GNG rationale that Gobonobo describes above, but the NACADEMICS 7 argument seems solid, and is sufficient.. --j⚛e decker ^talk 14:37, 4 February 2015 (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.