Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cynthia G. Franklin

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. There is a consensus that this article subject passes WP:AUTHOR. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia G. Franklin[edit]

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

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

Article has been without references since 2011, lacks notability. Tried to find ways to improve this page but it doesn’t seem to meet criteria for notability. Language is largely promotional and unsupported. Marleeashton (talk) 06:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Marleeashton (talk) 06:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:NAUTHOR appears to be the most likely notability criterion for this academic working in a "book field". I see three reviews [1][2][3] of Writing Women's Communities, and one review [4] of Academic Lives. Another 1-2 reviews would make this clearer to me. (It is likely that her new book will receive some reviews, but as usual, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After taking a closer look at the article and researching the subject, i dont think she is notable enough to have an article. Fails WP:BASIC and further, the fails WP:ANYBIO. After taking a look at WP:AUTHOR - i see that she has been cited by a few peers, but it's not substantial. I dont think she passes other criteria items listed in WP:AUTHOR.

On a side note, I do agree with @Marleeashton as this article sounds very promotional. RealPharmer3 (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - adding to what Russ Woodroofe has found: here is another review of Writing Women's Communities, in American Literature, and here is a review of Academic Lives in The Chronicle of Higher Education. Based on the available reception of her books, I think she passes WP:NAUTHOR. Bridget (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, she is one of the editors of the journal Biography, per the official website, which is an acceptable source per item #8 of Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Specific criteria notes. Her position might be a contributing factor towards satisfying criterion #1 of WP:NACADEMIC - depending on if Biography is a "major well-established academic journal in their subject area". Bridget (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
C8 also requires chief editorship. Biography fluctuates between two and five coeditors, none designated as head editor, and almost all of them are from the sponsoring department (UH's Center for Biographical Research). This indicates the publication is a shared responsibility of CBR faculty rather than anything with hierarchical editorship (although if anyone was at the top it would be the founding editor George Simson), so C8 would not apply. JoelleJay (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see - my mistake! Bridget (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish keep. For WP:NAUTHOR, I'm looking for 2 books with 2+ reviews each, and I see this here after the good find of the Chronicle piece by Bridget. It does not look to me like the journal editorship is of the sort discussed by WP:NPROF C8 (the journal looks minor, and her role looks short of editor-in-chief), but one notability criterion is enough. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems ok for AUTHOR with what's given for reviews. Maybe C8 for NPROF too. Oaktree b (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems ok but the additional citation tag should still be left, because the article still needs more references cite.Epcc12345 (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Was easy to find academic reviews of both her books and add them to the article, both suggest notability to me. This article needs improvement, not deletion. CT55555(talk) 23:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per NAUTHOR, assuming the reviews are substantial and reliable enough. JoelleJay (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2023 (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.