Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cynthia Whittaker

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. L Faraone 02:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Whittaker[edit]

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

Only one source for this article about an obscure professor. Everything that is on the page is from her faculty website and thus it is completely duplicative Glo145 (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:ACADEMIC: "1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Her work has been cited in a slew of scholarly books, e.g., [1], [2], [3], [4]. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People may find clicking on the "Scholar" link above helpful as it lists the number of other entries citing hers. The first, "The origins of modern Russian education: an intellectual biography of Count Sergei Uvarov, 1786-1855", shows 50 citing articles, for instance. [5] 24.151.116.25 (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - It is clearly stated in the policy on WP:ACADEMIC that “if an academic is notable under this guideline, his or her possible failure to meet other subject specific notability guidelines is irrelevant.” Many people interpret this incorrectly to mean that as long as they satisfy WP:ACADEMIC that they do not need to satisfy WP:GNG. General notability guidelines are not “subject specific” guidelines, they are general guidelines. As such, it is my opinion that this article must still meet WP:GNG in order for inclusion. With that being said, she is cited in many publications and has contributed to some as well. She would qualify under WP:ACADEMIC, but there are no WP:RS that would qualify her under general notability guidelines, which is the 1st step to inclusion in my opinion. As such, the article should be deleted or placed in a userspace until such time as she is identified by WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. Also, “Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1 [of WP Academic].” That kind of contradicts the academic guidelines, but still shows that the intent is not to allow articles to circumvent the WP:GNG and qualify for inclusion simply for being cited in other publications or having authored many texts.--FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ACADEMIC also states: "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." It does not say "notable for purposes of this guideline, but also must meet general notability criteria." 24.151.116.25 (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

24.151...'s interpretation of WP:PROF is the one generally accepted here, the idea being that academics generally cite works rather than write about people and show notability that way. However if FoolMeOnce2Times is arguing that she does not have enough academic notability for her work to qualify, then that's an acceptable position. ~~I am remaining Neutral for now.~~ Had a chance to look at the arguments more (2 June) and esp. the influence of her HUP book is sufficient to me to indicate a pass of WP:PROF#C1; Keep -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - MSC is basically right in that the general consensus has been that individuals who pass WP:ACADEMIC are considered notable (regardless of WP:GNG) in the same way that a sportsperson is considered notable if he or she passes WP:ATHLETE or WP:NOLYMPICS, even without significant coverage elsewhere. This allows coverage of perhaps slightly obscure Javelin gold medallists or professional footballers who play in teams with many famous players and so are not regularly written about. We have those guidelines as an acknowledgement that some people may have made a profound contribution to their field, and so should be covered here, without being covered in the Daily Mail or Chicago Tribune. The passage quoted by FoolMeOnce2Times - "if an academic is notable under this guideline, his or her possible failure to meet other subject specific notability guidelines is irrelevant." - does not have anything to do with WP:GNG, in my view. It's about other subject specific guidelines like WP:AUTHOR, meaning a professor can be notable for being a professor, without having to separately meet the criteria at WP:AUTHOR for the books he or she has written. In this case, there seems to be agreement that the subject passes WP:ACADEMIC and a quick GoogleBooks search would suggest she and her work have been quoted and cited regularly enough to potentially pass WP:GNG anyway. That's enough for me. Stalwart111 03:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Academic impact is trivial, with no work standing out. Prospects for greater citation impact are dim based on publication rate. No awards or leadership positions worthy of other WP:ACADEMIC criteria. Fails WP:ACADEMIC as well as general criteria in my reading.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a target number of citations required in mind? In a relatively small field like pre-20th Century Russian history, 50 Google Scholar citations for her academic biography of Sergei Uvarov strikes me as fairly significant. Compare with the 37 citations for a major work by Chester Dunning, another scholar in the field: [6]. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 4 full books , one of them by Harvard UP is enough for significance as an academic (the Harvard one is in 339 libraries) . Expanding Stalwart's example, our standard for comparison is not for obscure javelin gold medalists, but with anyone who ever actually competed in the Olympics, in javelin or any other sport. In response to Truth or consequences, being co-editor of a book published by HUP is somethingI would consider as work standing out to a very significant degree, Books in the historical sciences get cited for decades, so there are almost certain to be further citations. The book on Count Sergei Uvarov,is in 480 libraries. For a book on an early 19th century Russian Minister of Education to be that widely noticed is notability--where I saw the title, I expected about 100--and it was actually also translated into Russian as Graf Sergej Semenovič Uvarov i ego vremja 15 years after the original publication. Anyway, regardless of WP:PROF, she meets WP:AUTHOR: Her 2003 book on Russian Monarchy was reviewed in Slavic and East European journal. 48, no. 3, (2004): 525; Russian Review, v63 n4 (Oct., 2004): 698-699American historical review. 109, no. 4, (2004): 1339; Canadian-American Slavic studies. 39, no. 2, (2005): 285; Slavic review, 63, no. 2, (2004): 402; and Groniek. no. 165, (2004): 628. The Harvard book was reviewed in Solanus- 18, (2004): 122-12; Slavic and east european journal, 51, no. 4, (2007): 827-828; European History Quarterly, 35, no. 4, (2005): 614, and Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, v52 n4 (2004): 617. The book on Uvarov by American Historical Review, v90 n5 (Dec., 1985): 1240; Canadian Slavonic Papers v28 n2 (June 1986): 207; Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, v38 n2 (1990): 306; Slavic Review, v45 n2 (Summer, 1986): 324 ; Russian Review, v45 n1 (Jan., 1986): 75 and History of Education Quarterly, v27 n1 (Spring, 1987): 105 (this last one a 5p. review, unusual for an academic journal) These are just the reviews I saw in WorldCat, there are further indexes to search. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: DGG infuses an artificial and hardly relevant criterion here. A book getting into a library is hardly a sign of notability of the author or work. Many libraries have package deals or perfunctorily buy titles from certain presses. Many books sit on shelves unread and then get struck from library rolls without impact. This is comparatively likely to happen with major press books (such as HUP) that get bought automatically. As we speak I am reading a HUP book from 1989, which I bought used recently. It was officially withdrawn from an R1 research university's library. There, it was borrowed three times in 24 years: the proverbial tree that falls in the forest. As for reviews, and especially length of reviews, these are hardly relevant either. Again, some collections and topics are reviewed as a matter of course. History journals are notorious for reviewing anything regardless of quality and impact. A long review often simply means that the author of the review did not know what to say and just summarized the work at length. As far as WP:PROF we should see evidence of actual impact, and that is citations and presence in the academic dialog, since the career does not satisfy other criteria. Cynthia Whittaker fails on that critical count, and no, time will not magically heal this.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 10:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I came back here to say I've added the reviews to the article, and her other journal articles. As usual, articles here on faculty when they are first submitted are not as detailed as they ought to be)

But, to reply, though I hardly think it's needed for anyone who accepts our basic standards of NAUTHOR and PROF: a book getting into a library is not a sign of notability ; books getting into hundreds of them are. Libraries buy books on the basis of expect use, and reviews, and, for most libraries, faculty recommendations. Libraries do have standing approval plans for books from publishers and topics where they expect almost all of them to be asked for. As for substantial reviews showing notability of books, that's the relevant application of the basic GNG criterion, and is restated in NBOOK. People who write several notable books are notable. Truth, I think you are objecting to the basic idea that academics can be notable because of their academic work, and writers because of their writings. I've said as much here as should convince anyone who accepts that, DGG ( talk ) 16:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Truth, I think you are objecting to the fact that there should be standards of actual quality for academics and their work, even though citations are the accepted basis in the profession and this subject fails on that basis. I have said as much as should convince anyone who cares to separate notable from non-notable academics.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found similar results as David w.r.t. book holdings, which are appropriate bibliometrics for her area: "Origins of modern Russian education" 536, "Russia engages the world" 372, etc. We have historically taken such numbers as indication of notability in the humanities. Agricola44 (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per DGG's arguments. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Hate to pile on, but per DGG. I believe it'd pass GNG, technicalities aside, GNG is a proper default to test against. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:53, 7 June 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.