Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deirdre M. Condit

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 delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deirdre M. Condit[edit]

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

Not yet notable associate professor at a relatively minor university. No books. Most cited article is cited only 21 times. No reliable sources. Listing book reviews as "journal articles" is the sign of a scholar who is Not Yet Notable. Fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Too soon at best. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable in the article. It's currently used entirely as a CV with the bibliography and education sections. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROF. Graham (talk) 02:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now. Graham (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no material justifying notability. -- Callinus (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have added C-SPAN info. Have also moved the book reviews to their own section (all two of them!), not quite sure what is meant by "No reliable sources.", are Virginia Commonwealth University and Sage Publications considered unreliable? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 07:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VCU is an institution, not a source, and Sage is a publisher for which she works. Have they written independently about her, e.g. in a published bio (apologies if I've missed something like this). Agricola44 (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 07:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 07:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment/Weak~~ Keep Having done some research, some of which I've added to the article, I think she might pass inclusion for Wiki for a few reasons: 1) She's the chair of her dept, 2) She's sought after in multiple VA news sources over time for commentary in her area of expertise, 3) While she's not "wildly cited" the 21 citations mentioned from Google Scholar ignores the amount of books that pop up in Google Books that cite her work. 4) I'm not an expert in her area of feminism, but it seems like a niche area of study, and so I wouldn't expect a billion citations. She seems to have a different view of Feminism and Fetal personhood than I've experienced from "mainstream" feminism. This might point to a lower cite rate. That said, she may indeed be a case of WP:TOOSOON, as SwisterTwister points out. If this discussion ends in deletion, I think the article should be moved to draft space. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Condit is not just an editor of the new journal, Sexualization, Media and Society, she is one of the founders. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability does not yet seem sufficient. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I see again that the thrust is to try to force her to meet some standard other than WP: GNG, which is not required by our guidelines that clearly state no further standard is required if GNG is met. She does not yet meet Prof, as her Chair does not appear to be endowed and the journal which she founded and edits does not yet have sufficient history. However, that being said, she doesn't have to meet Prof. There are RS independent of the subject which confirm that she has been sought repeatedly for comment over time on a variety of gender related subjects from health inequalities [1] to same sex marriage [2] to politics [3], [[4]]. SusunW (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - might only be associate prof. but chair of a humanistic department at a major school usually is reserved for a quite respected scholar. Gender studies is a field where WP:BIAS has been noted on WP. Seems to clear the average professor test with room to spare. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, many non-science/medical/math/engineering departments use a "rotation" system for chair. Unless we know conclusively otherwise, that is probably the case here. Agricola44 (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

'Comment. Clear fail of WP:Prof#C1 with h-index of only 4 in a popular field, Over 15 is usually required. What else is there? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Over 15 for Political Science or for gender studies? I don't recall ever having a discussion of "usual" for these fields. Thanks. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please produce the evidence that an h-index of 4 is sufficient for these fields. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

UC Berkeley full profs. in Women and Gender studies in Web of Knowledge citation searches: Minoo Moallem: h-index 1. Juana María Rodríguez: h-index: 1; Charis Thompson (named chair): h-index: 3; Trinh T. Minh-ha: h-index: 0. your turn. :-) -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does this prove except that people at the beginnings of their careers have not had the time to notch up citations? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Full profs at UC Berkeley?????? -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

H-index of is too low (by long-established convention), but that's not typically how we eval those in the humanities. Rather, it's mostly by published books, which is the relevant currency. Moallem's books are held by thousands of institutions (according to WorldCat), but Condit does not (yet) seem to have published any (a PhD dissertation doesn't count). All avenues seem to point to WP:TOOSOON. Agricola44 (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

'Comment. The OP, @DGG:, states: No reliable sources. Listing book reviews as "journal articles" is the sign of a scholar who is Not Yet Notable. Set of questions (anyone can answer):

(1) In what way are the sources 'unreliable'?

(2} I've moved the book reviews (there are only 2) to their own section, but since when did a scholar writing book reviews in the early part of their academic career become an indication of a lack of notability? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

just as you say, the book reviews are what a scholar writes in the early part of their career. When their career continues and they have more to show, they usually don't mention them except on the formal academic CV that by current convention lists everything , down to individual guest presentations. "Early part of their career" equals not yet notable. apters.

However, h index is meaningless for someone who publishes mainly books. But she hasn't published any.

Chair of a department if held by an associate professor usually means they are forced into it by rotation--it's an administrative position, not an honor.

As for the GNG, almost all the references are to her own work or press releases or mere mentions. (US Federal News Service, Including US State News. is a medium for the publication of press releases--nothing published in it is usable for notability , and all of it is dubious for any BLP content.) "About the author" in the foreword to a book or symposium or whatever is normally written by either the author or a press agent for them or for their publisher. As for the others: The Richmond Times-Dispach listing is not an article, its part of a list of the salary of all state employees. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When their [a scholar] career continues and they have more to show, they usually don't mention them except on the formal academic CV that by current convention lists everything , down to individual guest presentations. - Condit doesn't mention them, I tracked them down through WorldCat, here and here.

Why are references to her own work in a biography which is about Condit to be discounted?

h index is meaningless - according to who?

Chair of a department if held by an associate professor usually means they are forced into it by rotation--it's an administrative position, not an honor. That's pure conjecture, and also fairly insulting to anyone who is chair of a department in a university.

I'm not sure that you can call the piece by Michael Pope for WAMU or the WTVR item mere mentions. In any case both of them, and the article in the US Federal News Service, Including US State News. diff, and the article in Richmond Times-Dispach diff, were added by User:Megalibrarygirl after the nomination for AfD (so not part of the original reason for stating no reliable sources in the OP). She also added this ref and this ref which you haven't mentioned/faulted. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator hasn't responded to SusunW and, like her, I would also assert that someone is notable if they are being sought for commentary. All together, the local sources, the books and the presswire indicate that she's being noticed, which is part of notability. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You will have to produce policy-based evidence for such an assertion. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I'm talking about WP:GNG. She passes GNG based on what I see. It's borderline, true. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROF plainly states "This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines... and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the General Notability Guideline." Clearly does not say it supercedes GNG in any way. GNG simply requires people to have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" Does not require them to be limited to the sole dimension of anything, which prof assumes that someone could only be notable for being an academic. It is extremely rare that any person lives in a vacuum. There is nothing in GNG that requires anyone to be established in any field or to even have a career. SusunW (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, if Porn Studies had to rely on academic notability rather than press coverage to have an article then it would have been a speedy delete. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Above is again an argument on the basis that the subject is a "sought after pundit". This can satisfy GNG, but here it seems that it's mostly limited to local outlets and TV stations, for example the student-reported story on local affiliate channel 6 and all the other local sources that SusunW furnished – "local" is not the fodder for GNG, otherwise most academics would be notable. Also, most commentators seem to be unaware that some institutions have a rotation system for chairs and this tends to happen more in non-science departments. If this is true here (and I think it is a safe assumption), then this aspect adds no weight towards notability. Her citations are low and the SMS journal was founded in 2015, so editorship does not carry the weight of an established journal. I think the honest assessment here is that her trajectory is very promising, but that it is still WP:TOOSOON, as SwisterTwister argued. Agricola44 (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Local coverage does not negate GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is GNG validated by local coverage. This is indeed the "muddy water" of GNG. However, I think one must have a sense of proportion here. Think of what I would call routine academic punditry in local media: commentary of poly-scis for every muni election, economists for local business developments, ed-profs for school bond issues, physics profs for eclipses, biologists for the science fair (the list goes on) – what you're advocating would render all these academics notable. Indeed, a large fraction of academia would instantly become notable, simply for doing the routine kinds of work that academics do. In essence, "local" is not really in the spirit of GNG. It helps, but if it's the only real argument (as it seems to be here), then it unfortunately isn't enough. Agricola44 (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

The comment about the rotation was: Chair of a department if held by an associate professor usually means they are forced into it by rotation--it's an administrative position, not an honor. - this has a negative connotation. I have no idea whether Condit regards her turn as chair as a hateful task that she has to do when it is her turn, or a perk of the job that she relishes, and neither does any other editor here. Notability wise - the point is she cannot be replaced by just anyone, in fact the list of people who could do it is actually quite short. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, Agricola44, but I do disagree that local coverage isn't in the spirit of GNG. Many people/things/events are important in their own communities and are notable only in that context. Wikipedia does provide the ability to cover local interest. For example, Plaza Theatre (El Paso) is really only of interest to serious historical theater buffs, people of El Paso, or visitors of El Paso, TX wanting to learn more about that historic building. The fact that the Plaza Theater is local doesn't make it non notable, however. It's the amount of sources that are available. I do think that this prof is borderline. It would be a stronger case if the journal she founded has been around longer. However, I don't think we should delete. At worst, I think we should userfy and give it time. Since she's borderline, I choose the side of keep. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid physical structures are not analogous here. In fact, the fixed nature (locality) of buildings has been debated enough such that we have a specific guideline just for that (WP:LOCAL). The problem is not that Condit is local, but rather that the sources only discuss what is of interest to people of that community. Would you agree that, under your interpretation, most academics would be rendered notable? Agricola44 (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@Vintage Fem: Not my words there, but I would not get too caught-up in the tone of that comment. Many university departments do, in fact, rotate chairs (our article on academic departments mentions this). The protocol is more common in smaller departments and non-science departments (Condit's department is both of these). The fact that Condit is at the associate level all but confirms her department follows this method. Indeed, her institution feels there are many people who could do that job – essentially any other tenured member of the department. Agricola44 (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2016 (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.