Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shoshana Grossbard-Shechtman

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. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shoshana Grossbard-Shechtman[edit]

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

Contested prod. No articulation of why this minor academic meets WP:PROF. Little mention in third party sources, mostly simply the occasional quote in news reports on and passing mentions in discussing more prominent academics (e.g. Kingsley Davis). Best source to date is this San Diego Union Tribune piece -- but it appears to only concentrate on a single claim of hers, rather than provide any breadth of biographical coverage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Noted economist. Writer of well known works on the economics of marriage and the household. (Published under a variety of names including "Amyra Grossbard" "Amyra Grossbard Shechtman", "Shoshana Grossbard" and "Shoshana Grossbard-Shechtman"). Founder and editor in chief of Review of Economics of the Household. In my view a clear pass of WP:Prof. (Msrasnw (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Also seems to pass WP:Auth #3 The person has created...a significant ..work ..that has been the subject of ...multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. One of her books has been the subject of multiple reviews in peer reviewed journals. Three reviews have been added to the article. (Msrasnw (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

WP:AUTHOR requires "a significant or well-known work". It is questionable whether On the Economics of Marriage - A Theory of Marriage, Labor and Divorce is well-known or has any wider significance. In any case, this guideline is aimed at "Creative professionals" writing for a wider audience, not WP:ACADEMICs, which have a separate set of criteria.
Merely citing the reviews for the bare fact that the book WP:ITEXISTS does little to establish notability. What do these reviews say about her writing?

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Prof says "This guideline is independent from the other subject specific notability guidelines, such as ...WP:AUTH etc.: it is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject specific notability guidelines". I take this to mean that we should look at guidelines like WP:auth for academics as well as WP:prof when deciding whether to throw away articles. The book in question has, according to google scholar been cited more than 200 times which would seem probably indicative of notability, and the three reviews listed in our article are articles in peer reviewed journals which are deemed reliable sources. WP:prof also seems to be passed by her work's notability and chief editorship of the journal. The Canadian court case stuff also seems more notable than the stuff you mention in your first post. (Msrasnw (talk) 08:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Keep Editor-in-chief of a major journal, hence meets WP:PROF. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With recent improvements in the references, this is demonstrated to b a notable economist and author, and the article should be kept. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "AFD is not cleanup". Consider that Wikipedia is a work in progress and articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet. Remember, Wikipedia has no deadline. If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to satisfy WP:PROF #8. Unscintillating (talk) 07:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree, this person meets WP:PROF. Founded and manages a notable journal, and has their book cited by others in their field. Dream Focus 08:36, 30 January 2012 (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.