Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marika Sherwood

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. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 18:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marika Sherwood[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)

Created by SPA CraigSherwood (contributions) who quite possibly has a COI based on the username.[1] Reads like a CV. Does not pass GNG based on coverage. While she has authored some books (many of these are self-published via Savannah Press which is owned by the subject and published the subject) and papers over the years she doesn't pass NPROF(1). She is untenured and does not pass any of the other NPROF criteria. Icewhiz (talk) 06:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well-known as an historian/author/speaker writing on Pan Africanism and Black history. Independent researcher not an academic so author might be more relevant than WP:Prof. More work is needed on sourcing and I think a reduction of the number of publications to just key publications might be good. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC))[reply]

It doesn't work like that. Someone has to actually find WP:SIGCOV, not merely assert that it may exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think/thought the books published by Routledge, L&W and her articles might have been enough. I have added multiple independent reviews (as refs) might help meet WP:Author - but I guess the "problems" with the more recent events might be controversial and problematic and might outweigh the writings on African things - which is where I know of her. (Msrasnw (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC))[reply]

I'm looking at this via the NPROF perspective - as she basically had a career as an untenured academic (in Sydney/NY/London) and has published a bit. I am ignoring, mostly, the self-published works. Her published works do not in my eyes rise up to NPROF(1) if we look at citations in say google scholar - she definitely has had some output - but on a level that is comparable to many other academics.Icewhiz (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete fails WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR. Despite a 2017 WP:BLP1E; she was invited by a student political group to give a talk, the university found the proposed title “unduly provocative” and the title was changed. Delete because what I cannot find is WP:SIGCOV of her work, life or career. Books are largelu self-published , papers are in minor journals, ad neither has had impact in terms of being cited. Page, a long list of published works, is mere WP:PROMO. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For failing to meet any notability criteria. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't see any rationale for the keep. --1l2l3k (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - she got BLP1E notability for a censored speech at Manchester University, but I'm basing my weak keep on her published output. I added a review of one of her most notable books from an Ohio State literary journal, and there are several other reviews mentioned at this link [[2]], but the Industry reviews tab itself can't be direct-linked. Reviews for other books can be found, such as [[3]]. Googling her brings up seminars and symposiums where she has presented such as this one [[4]], so all together, this barely passes WP:GNG for me. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep page is WP:PROMO, I am appropriatly skeptical of the notability of academic nomads, and stuff that came up on my first searches is decidedly WP:FRINGE, I don't think I'd assign one of her books, however, prompted by timtempleton's comment I looked at her on gScholar, and her work does get cited. And there are respectful reviews of the early books on JSTOR, seems to be one of the those intellectuals who start out OK but end up FRINGE, like Linus Pauling. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think she passes WP:AUTHOR. She is one of the increasing number of independent scholars; I have tended to share E.M.Gregory's skepticism, but it seems clear that this will be an increasing phenomenon. She has managed to get several books published by mainstream presses (in addition to her self published work), and contributed to mainstream journals. (I removed a nmber of less formally published works from the articles section, as I would for any academic bio) FWIW, I see no indication her views are Fringe in the usual sense. They rather fall into the earlier tradition of associating Black and Jewish concerns, an alliance which in the mid 20th century used to be standard, but has gradually disintegrated, for causes including the rise of Black nationalism and of Israeli expansionism, and--the way I look at the world--the loss of class solidarity due to the greater economic separation of the two groups. The parallel is not with Pauling, a world=famous mainstream scientist who eventually changed his interests into somewhat Fringe territory--she has never had anywhere near his importance. DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:AUTHOR. Sherwood's book After Abolition is held by 1,260 libraries and has been a subject of intense debate. Sample reviews: history.ac.uk; H-Net; Race & Class Journal; etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would say she fails WP:NPROF but satisfied WP:NAUTHOR - coffman has laid out some good reviews and there is other discussion on it above. Notability is lasting, so as long as she met it at any point then she still does. As to quality and nature of the article, obviously it needs to be gone through with more than an axe - a veritable chainsaw would be suitable. It might teeter on the edge of a G11, but in lieu of confidence of that, then it's a keep. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of news sources, including The Guardian. Easily possible to improve. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:53, 5 September 2018 (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.