Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tameka Hobbs

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 redirect to Democracy Abroad, Lynching At Home. Consensus is that the person is not notable, but now that an article about her book exists it's the logical redirect target. Content can be merged from history if desired. Sandstein 07:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tameka Hobbs[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC. Having a single book reviewed over some journals is not an encyclopedic achievement. None of her other publications seem any significant.

Nothing else over <http://tamekabradleyhobbs.com/the-author/> assures me that she passes our notability. ∯WBGconverse 14:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly not notable. MaskedSinger (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MaskedSinger Please explain how she is 'Clearly not notable" it is not sufficient just to say that without explanation.Theroadislong (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why certainly Theroadislong! She fails to satisfy WP:PROF, WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG.As I said, clearly not notable. MaskedSinger (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The reporter for the Lake Wells article: Chevon T. Baccus APR, Executive Editor & Publisher: worked as a newspaper reporter and editor for eight years... - so this was not a crowdsourced article. In addition the subject's main work: Democracy abroad, lynching at home : racial violence in Florida by Tameka B Hobbs: 9 editions were published between 2015 and 2016 in English and it is held by 1,051 WorldCat member libraries worldwide. How many non Worldcat member libraries? Unsure. Some ambitious editors will need to find more to improve the article because WP:NEXIST. I will also continue. Lightburst (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment: I have added multiple news references showing that this subject is widely called upon for her expertise and her research is often cited. I am satisfied that the subject also passes WP:AUTHOR The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. Subject is also called upon to lecture as an expert in her field of study. (will add refs) Lightburst (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your source self-describes to be crowd sourced; what that means is that it offers no editorial control and any Tom and Harry may write damn anything. Tom may be a self-professed journalist or any dog over the internet or a Nobel Prize winner. WP:SPS is amply clear that such sources shall be discredited as in this particular case.
Writing a single well-received book grants notability to the book but not to the author. See WP:NOTINHERITED. ∯WBGconverse 17:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
almost all academic books get reviewed so that is nothing special Xxanthippe (talk) 04:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • yep, (sort of:)) agree, but the way the nbook guideline is worded this title does meet it so could have a standalone. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Coolabahapple, can you kindly use proper grammar and punctuation marks? Almost all academic books get reviewed over some or the other journal and thus, unless there are at-least 3 or 4 books which have been reviewed over multiple journals and have been noted to be a significant contribution to the discipline, there's no passage of NPROF/NAUTHOR. ∯WBGconverse 08:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "proper grammar and punctuation marks?", really? and which would you like? British, American, or Australian? i assume you are referring to one of these types, please indicate which. anyway, nauthor specifically states "work or collective body of work", it does not have a proviso/footnote 'an exception are academics who need to have 3 or 4 books over multiple journals to meet this guideline' (and again, nbook does not have a footnote/proviso 'an exception are books by academics that as they are nearly always reviewed somewhere are not able to use point 1 to meet this guideline'). Coolabahapple (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    For a start, the first word of a sentence begins with a capital letter. Also, I, not i. ∯WBGconverse 15:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aye aye sir, I will comply (Note: This agreement is not legally binding. Coola reserves the right to type any which way as long as it is reasonably readable and will probably revert to (some editors may say) inappropriate usage of lower case, and other (so called) grammatical errors). Coolabahapple (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I missed the later parts of your sarcastic reply:- It simply means that you are probably not acquainted with how academia works. Give me any academic book, published via any half-decent press and I will get you a single review, at the very minimum. ∯WBGconverse 17:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • revisiting this, oh well, there goes around 8 years working and studying in academia (its funny how people make assumption about others based on such little information), anyway, on your point above, yes and a single review is not enough to meet nbook while two reviews are so there can/should be a lot more academic books on wikipedia, frankly I have always been pretty amazed at the small number that are on WP ie. there are 22th articles under wikiproject Books that covers (or should cover) all adult non-fiction including academic books, a paltry amount when compared with, say, the project that covers the beautiful game that has around 350th! articles (and thats just one of the ballsy projects!), but I suppose most academics are a self-effacing lot, well maybe outside their given field:) so that could be why WP reflects this. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If I have my way, I will nuke the millions of articles about players who stepped out in the field for a single game and vanished thereafter but a lot many have already failed. So, not optimistic, at all.
    For someone, who's spent 8 years over academia, you need to have known the circumstances about reviews of academic works. ∯WBGconverse 15:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. One book with two published reviews and two minor local awards, and three other books that are self-published or essentially self-published and unreviewed, aren't enough for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF for me. What it would take to tip me over towards a weak keep would be some independent and reliably-published coverage of at least one of her other books, but I didn't find that in my own searches. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This BLP was declined submission on 12 and 17 June, as can be seen from its history. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks Lightburst (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Lightburst, editors are able to make changes to an article while an afd is underway (and i see that you have reverted the changes), another way to make editors aware of what was there is to provide a link to the previous version ie. "Since this afd began, text has been removed, the article use to look like this." Coolabahapple (talk) 10:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Coolabahapple that is not correct. Another editor reverted the changes, which means at least two editors disagree with the nominator's removal of content. And, of course editors can make changes during an afd, (that is what I have been doing) however the nominator has an obvious COI. The nom has removed content twice against the wishes of at least two editors. I believe it is poor form for the nominator to remove the work of editors who are attempting to address the inadequacies of the article. It is disheartening. Lightburst (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge to Democracy Abroad, Lynching At Home. I can't find enough specifically about Tameka Hobbs to justify a standalone article; anything WP:RS is primarily about her book. However, it clearly passes WP:NBOOK, with reviews in at least three long-established academic journals. No prejudice against re-creation – should she achieve independent notability in future, the material from the article under discussion would be there, ready to be split out. Narky Blert (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP So sad to see so many Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Article alerts at WP:AFD especially African American. I have reviewed and accepted/declined many thousands of drafts at WP:AFC Professor Tameka Hobbs appears to me to pass WP:GNG with multiple in-depth independent coverage of her, a notable book and a notable award. Theroadislong (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No clue about the relevance of the first two lines. There's zero in-depth coverage of her. There's an article about the book and the award is non-significant. ∯WBGconverse 15:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not yet notable. Fails WP:PROF (and WP:AUTHOR)--one significant book (Democracy abroad, lynching at home) with only routine reviews, and minor awards, and published by a minor academic press is not enough, and the Library of Virginia one is not significant--the other two are self published. I have reviewed and accepted maybe 500 WiR drafts, and not accepted perhaps 200, of which half went on to be acceptable. There's a difference between trying to include all the notable women, and stretching the inclusion criteria to include those who are not actually notable. The implication from trying to include the non-notable ones is that the standard of expectations for women are lower than for men--this is internalization of the cultural misogyny. I can understand having this attitude perhaps 80 or 100 years ago, but by now we should have realized the need for true equality of both opportunity and accomplishment. DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
and, fwiw, I don't thing the book meets our notability standards either, but that wil lbe a separate discussion. DGG ( talk ) 19:23, 15 July 2019 (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/Tameka_Hobbs&oldid=906500183"