Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aviva Chomsky (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Consensus to keep, largely based on WP:AUTHOR. j⚛e deckertalk 17:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Aviva Chomsky
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability is not inherited. A frightening number of Noam's family members seem to have inherited notability from him, and there is a distinct lack of third-party sources that demonstrate Aviva's independent notability. The closest thing to a legitimate claim of notability I can find is that West Indian Workers and United Fruit Company won a rather unremarkable award.

I think either reducing this to an entry on the Chomsky disambiguation page or merging West Indian Workers and United Fruit Company (and further attempting to establish independent notability in the article) into this article would be the best option. Inanygivenhole (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article makes no claim that she meets any of the requirements for WP:ACADEMIC. Merely publishing a book obviously does not establish a sufficient level of notability. mikeman67 (talk) 06:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Chomsky's published a lot more than just "a book"; she's published about a dozen of them (including those for a general rather than strictly scholarly audience). Many of these books, along with her journal articles, have what look to me to be reasonably high citation counts in indexes such as Google Scholar, and have attracted professional reviews.  She may therefore pass WP:AUTHOR (according to the first criterion) and/or WP:ACADEMIC (according to criteria 1 and 7).  —Psychonaut (talk) 10:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Chomsky has also been interviewed a lot by sources which are possibly or indisputably reliable. For example, there is an interview in Der Standard (an Austrian national daily newspaper) and another in The Chronicle of Higher Education.   Whether such interviews count as primary or secondary sources has been a matter of debate (see for example Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 153) though I think it's generally agreed that such interviews are evidence of notability, even though they cannot be used as reliable sources for any claims the BLP subject makes about him- or herself.  Besides the interviews I found a short biography in The Writers Directory (St. James Press, 2005 edition), several short mentions in major newspapers of record reporting on her books and speaking engagements, and a couple further newspaper articles about her activism and a recent incident when she and her father were denied entry to Israel.  The latter can be found via Highbeam. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 *  Delete  Keep. GS shows only decent citation rates for one of her books (West Indian Workers and United Fruit Company) and even that one at 130 cites is not that heavily cited. The other books have citations rates around 20. Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. However, per the sources found by GreenC, meets WP:AUTHOR. --Randykitty (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not yet enough evidence yet of impact. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC).
 * Keep per AUTHOR multiple book reviews. The Delete !votes above are premised on PROF which she probably doesn't meet but she does have book review coverage in many journals. This is only an incomplete ebsco search, have no looked into Gale, JSTOR or ProQuest yet.
 * Revista de Estudios Hispanicos, Oct 2004, Vol. 38 Issue 3
 * Canadian Journal of Latin American & Caribbean Studies, 2009, Vol. 34 Issue 68
 * Bulletin of Hispanic Studies, (1475-3839), Oct 2005, Vol. 82 Issue 4
 * Wadabagei: A Journal of the Caribbean & Its Diasporas, Spring/Summer 2006, Vol. 9 Issue 2
 * A Contracorriente, Fall 2010, Vol. 8 Issue 1
 * Historical Journal of Massachusetts, Fall 2010, Vol. 38 Issue 2
 * Estudios Interdisciplinarios de America Latina y el Caribe, Jul-Dec 2010, Vol. 21 Issue 2
 * Dialectical Anthropology, 2010, Vol. 34 Issue 2
 * Journal of American History, Mar 2009, Vol. 95 Issue 4
 * American Historical Review, Oct 2009, Vol. 114 Issue 4
 * Canadian Journal of History, Winter 2009, Vol. 44 Issue 3
 * Journal of Third World Studies, Spring 2012, Vol. 29 Issue 1
 * Tikkun, May 2007
 * Publishers Weekly, Vol. 253 Issue 14
 * Multicultural Review, Fall 2007, Vol. 16 Issue 3
 * Publishers Weekly, Vol. 261 Issue 3
 * NWIG: New West Indian Guide / Nieuwe West-Indische Gids, 2012, Vol. 86 Issue 3/4
 * -- Green  C  02:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment The nom's first rationale that "Notability is not inherited" is incorrect. Please note that there is no rule about this. INHERIT is an essay meant to educate newbies on what not to say during an AfD discussion ie. don't just say someone is notable because of their birthright. It doesn't mean we are supposed to ignore sources, ignore WP:GNG and ignore WP:NOTE. Also, citing INHERIT in a nomination, before anyone has even !voted, is a misapplication of the essay which is part of the series "Arguments to avoid during an AfD discussion". It's a red hearing to bring it up in the nomination before anyone has even argued anything. --  Green  C  02:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Citing INHERIT in deletion nomination is a common, accepted practice dating back many years. Inanygivenhole (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Although I have changed my !vote to "keep" based on GC's sources, I do agree with Inanygivenhole that there is nothing unusual in invoking NOTINHERITED. Notability has to be assessed independently for each subject on its own merits. --Randykitty (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * INHERIT is part of the essay series titled "Arguments to avoid during an AfD". There is no rule about INHERIT. It's an essay. For example, I have overturned AfDs at DRV when I was the only Keep vs multiple deletes, because using an essay to justify deletion is a weak position if there is any contention. -- Green  C  17:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * has a good insight into this. The truth is notability is inherited, and although usually it's not enough (so we can have a rule of thumb) - sometimes it is. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you're just repeating yourself. I've already responded to that: whether or not the essay pertains to it, it is a common and in my opinion very justified use of the essay. Inanygivenhole (talk) 04:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. The many book reviews listed by Green Cardamom (and several more in highbeam) are enough to convince me of a pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.