Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yvonne Haddad

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. v/r - T P 18:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yvonne Haddad[edit]

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

This article is about an obscure academic. It is based on her CV and self-description in an interview. There are no biographic books or articles about her that I can find. Jason from nyc (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF #1. I got blown away by the Google Scholar results - she's not obscure at all! St Anselm (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was thing along the lines of WP:BLPSPS, self-publish. I was unfamiliar with the details of WP:PROF and unaware of finding citation rates. I concede your argument. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. SA says it all. Stunning cites for religion. Would the nominator like to explain why he ignored this. Did I miss something?. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Keep. Easily passes WP:PROF #1, with a h-index of about 25 (very high for this field), and a total of 626 citations for her top three books. There is also substantial news coverage. An astonishing failure of WP:BEFORE here. -- 101.119.14.206 (talk) 07:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate information on obtaining this info on academics and their citation rates. I was looking in articles and books. By the way, an excellent source by Goff was recently added that I didn't find and clearly states what I had hoped to find. I concede notability. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PROF#Specific criteria notes, section #1. The phrase "a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates" has generally been interpreted as a large enough h-index (which can be calculated from Google Scholar). Past AfD discussions have usually taken the h-index notability threshold to be somewhere in the range of 15 to 20 (depending on the field of research). Alternatively, a handful of publications with hundreds of citations (like Haddad's books) also satisfies WP:PROF #1. Think of it this way: each citation is an independent, reliable contribution to notability. Of course, there are also 8 other WP:PROF criteria, any one of which is enough for notability (for example, Haddad seems to be the person most US newspapers seem to go to if they want an expert opinion on Islam; that probably satisfies WP:PROF #7, if anyone cared to make that case). -- 101.119.15.86 (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. She's been called one of the "101 Most Dangerous Academics In America." That's not a WP:RS but, with a clear pass of WP:PROF #1, that doesn't matter. -- 101.119.14.239 (talk) 10:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is ridiculous. I've lost my good faith in regard to the nominator and am wondering if he needs to stay away from Islam-related articles. Dougweller (talk) 11:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This seems an honest mistake, and the nom has conceded. I think this AfD can safely be closed early. -- 101.119.15.86 (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2013 (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.