Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martha Copp

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 no consensus. Seems like we may actually be trending toward a "keep", but with no new comments in many days, another relist would be unlikely to yield a more conclusive result. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Copp[edit]

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

This article does not demonstrate the notability of Martha Copp. It reads more like a vita than an encyclopedia article. Although 16 "references" appear, the links lead to a login for a research service. Nothing is presented to show coverage of Martha Copp and her work in reliable, independent sources. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS cites seem a bit slender yet for WP:Prof#C1, maybe WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete GNG, BROCHURE. South Nashua (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Quality is not a reason for deletion. She is the co-author of a highly cited book. I found a couple of references discussing her work. Students are terrible at creating articles about their professors. The text of this one was copied in from the professor's faculty web page. I've fixed that and reduced the publication list to selected publications. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The original editor insists on replacing the selected publications with a long list. See the list of those with more citations at this version of the page. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as the subject has written a book with over 600 citations. As far as her other works are concerned, the subject however only has an h-index of around 8 (which is probably not good enough even in a not-so-high citation field such as sociology). Other arguments the nominator raised (written like a resume, paywalled references, etc.), are no reason for deletion -- tag it up for cleanup instead; see WP:BEFORE and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. — Stringy Acid (talk) 07:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 00:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I am very much on the fence, pretty much just like Stringy Acid, but leaning the other directioon. One co-authored book with decent citations, everything else on the lower side, no indication of meeting WP:PROF otherwise. I couldn't find information on any awards, honor, nobody has written so much as a sentence calling her important in the field. I am a sociologist but not in this field, so the fact that I haven't heard of her doesn't matter, but still, publishing one book which got some citations but no reviews of itself... I am afraid that doesn't cut it. Her publication record is decent but not outstanding, and I don't think decent is enough for encyclopedia. Ping User:Randykitty (who has seen many of academic h-index discussions) and User:K.e.coffman (who just found some reviews that made me vote keep on another academic AFD). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- a co-author of notable book:

Emotions and fieldwork: 21 editions published between 1993 and 2010 in English and Italian and held by 507 WorldCat member libraries worldwide.

Seems to be relatively well cited. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 22 April 2017 (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.