Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ann Trindade

Ann Trindade was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was no consensus&mdash;page kept. Cool Hand Luke  19:48, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not to be invidious, and quite aware that I'm less notable than Ms. Trindade, I googled her and found lots of Wikipedia mirrors and similar pages, and only the information that she's an associate professor and has written a book. Lots, and lots, and lots of people are the one and/or have done the other. &#8212; Bill 16:39, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - I waffled about this before deciding to invest some time in updating; as the author of a book that is referenced as a source in another article, I think she is a link in the web of authority that the encyclopedia as a whole rests on, just as we have an article about Livy, one of whose purposes is to address the believability of the many bits of info for whom Livy is our sole source. (Ironically, Ms. Trindade's material is probably far more factually accurate than Livy.) Lack of Google hits for a real live professional historian just proves that the net is a crappy source of info, but we knew that already. :-) Stan 17:59, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. I worked as an editorial assistant at the book review section of a history journal (The Historian) for four years and I can say from first-hand experience that dozens upon dozens of books are written on history by dozens upon dozens of authors each and every year.  Unless it can be proven that she is notable for some other reseaon than being a history professor and having published a book or two (even if some of her works are considered "definitive" on relatively minor or obscure subjects), then this person not only fails to be encyclopedic in her own right, but also opens up this resource to hundreds of articles on completely unremarkable, though important in their own way, history scholars. Indrian 18:06, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * K Wolfman 20:44, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Berengaria: In Search of Richard the Lionheart's Queen Amazon.com Sales Rank in Books: #1,178,128. For comparison, when I wrote part of the article on Jack London I referenced Jack London's Women, by Clarice Stasz, a well-written, well-researched biography by a professor at Sonoma State College who is a recognized authority on London. Amazon.com Sales Rank in Books: #1,184,336. So I'm going to say these two academics and their books are broadly comparable. Both are indeed part of our web of authority. Both are acknowledged, by citation in our articles on Berengaria of Navarre and Jack London, respectively. Both are more notable than I. In the case of Clarice Stasz I feel confident that she does not merit an encyclopedia article about her. So, I make the same judgement about Ann Trindade. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 21:32, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Why not an article on Clarice Stasz? She's probably more notable than many of the forgotten academics whose bios have been carefully collected from 1911EB. Acknowledgement in a citation is not really sufficient to inform the reader about the level of trust to put in the reference, because for instance it can't say whether the purported authority is a novelist dabbling in nonfiction or a serious academic. In fact, in the process of dissing Stasz, you dropped a couple bits of info that the serious student of Jack London ought to know, but without an article, the info will be lost when this discussion is deleted. (I realize this is an additional level of depth that maybe WP is not ready for yet, and that I should just be glad when articles even have references in the first place. :-) ) Stan 03:38, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Dissing? And here I thought I was complimenting her... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:44, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, you mention her key notability, then say it's still not good enough. I should send her email - "forget this boring Jack London stuff - murder the department head with an axe, and WP's front page is yours". 1/2 :-) Stan 03:21, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: nonnotable academic. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:50, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject of her book only gets 1000 hits (one says "Among the least-known European queens, Berengaria of Navarre may head the roster."), despite being a political player involved with several European nation-states around the time of the Crusades (she was married to Richard I of England, a political marriage to create ties to Navarre--she was also the last of a previously reigning royal line), so I don't think the comparison to the author of a book about somebody as famous and contemporary as Jack London (424,000 hits) is a fair comparison. Note that if you search the name on amazon.com, her book is cited as a reference for a broader book about that time period (The Death of Kings: Royal Deaths in Medieval England). Niteowlneils 02:29, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete: We're not debating Berengaria, but Trindade, and not her, but this article. This article sets her up as Jane Doe, Academic.  It gives her book.  That makes her book's subject notable and her book a notable reference for that subject, but it does not make this professor encyclopedic.  Did she do something?  Has she established a new trend in history?  Did she get a department organized around her?  Most of the books by Stanley Fish are out of date or not that important (in my UNC point of view), but the man changed English departments.  A fine book is a fine book.  The author isn't the subject (unless it's by Eve Sedgewick). Geogre 05:06, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. NeoJustin 10:49 Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * Neutral. Don't care much either way, since no one has put much work into this, and the subject is a person who would be roughly marginal for inclusion. If anyone has indication of more notability, I'd be glad to see it, and would consider a vote to keep. - Jmabel | Talk 06:53, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. Radman1 16:14, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Most academics can probably claim to be the expert on some subject, however small.  That doesn't automatically make the academic notable, even if the subject is. Isomorphic 00:40, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment It occurs to me that Criteria for inclusion of biographies is particularly relevant here&mdash;specifically, "The professor test&mdash;If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor, they can and should be included." This reduces the problem to one of determining how Trindade compares to "an average college professor." Too bad the page doesn't quantify how well known or how published an average college professor is! [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:42, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't agree with the proposal at Criteria for inclusion of biographies.  If an author (professor or not) wrote a serious nonfiction book, from a legitimate publisher (not a vanity press), then some reader might want to know more about that author.  I'm not saying we have to drop all other projects and run out to do articles on every author in the world, but if someone has done the article (or even a stub), we might as well keep it. JamesMLane 03:49, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't say I agree with the criterion&mdash;you'll notice that page isn't policy, only proposed policy&mdash;but I do say it's relevant to consider. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 09:57, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * You know, you have to ask yourself, if Rigrog the Elf is notable, isn't someone who actually does exist and has contributed something to the world of knowledge (hey, we're trying to do that ourselves)? Apparently, her book is definitive on Berengaria (Wikipedia says so!). As for the professor test, the average professor might have published a few journal articles but not a book. I don't think there's any great urge to delete her, since the article is not frivolous, but none either to keep her. So weakly keep, innit.Dr Zen 03:54, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Intrigue 16:46, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks like a pretty definitive historical biography to me.  The Steve  18:18, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mikkalai 23:55, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep looks notable in her field, definate potential to yeild a short but useful encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not paper.  &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  14:12, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Keep.  Yes, everyone with a PhD is a world expert on something.  Yes, a lot of people have published books.  But Wikipedia has a lot of storage space.  --L33tminion 17:02, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, the world field of biographers of Berengaria of Navarre isn't bound to be all that sizable. No real danger in keeping, I feel, and besides, I hope there are many more entries on published academics and their works.Keep Lacrimosus 07:41, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.