Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beatriz Colomina


 * 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Beatriz Colomina

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails to meet any of the criteria for notability under WP: Academic Nick012000 (talk) 09:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - Okay, going by WP:ACADEMIC. Firstly, Beatriz Colomina is a faculty member and directer at Princeton University, as well as winning a 2003 Old Dominion Faculty Fellow, so she passes the professor test. She has also won three grants, at the Chicago Institute for Architecture, Fondation Le Corbusier, and the Center for Advanced Studies. Colomina has three books published, as well as essays in journals. Also, all of these things are sourced on the page. It is relevant to people interested in architectural history and theory and criticism but I see why somebody who is not would not see her as notable. I don't really see why the article would need to be deleted --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 11:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been listed at the WikiProject History talk page, WikiProject Architecture talk page  & WikiProject National Register of Historic Places talk page. --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 11:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable per Drowninginlimbo, certainly much more so than any of the footballers we keep for having played once in a national team. The nom seems to be related to a dispute here. -- ELEKHHT 12:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Another link to the dispute and associated vandalism --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Question which of NACADEMICS does she pass on? I'm not sure being a director fits.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * None of them, as far as I can tell. That's why I nominated it for deletion to begin with. Criterion 1, failed; she's no Gloria Steinem. Criteron 2, failed; the awards she's received are for books she's written outside her academic work, so we'd have to apply the rules at WP:Author, all of which she also fails. 3. She's not a member of any notable professional organisations. 4. No notable impact on higher education. 5. Okay, she's the Founding Director of a particular university's "Media and Modernity" course, but is that notable, or just impressive-sounding resume padding? I mean, do we want to create a wikipedia page for everyone who starts every new course every university ever offers? 6. She's never been a dean. 7. Again, no Gloria Steinem, and her contributions to literature don't count because they don't meet the rules of WP:Author. 8: She doesn't edit any journals. 9. Fails to meet the requirements of WP: Author.--Nick012000 (talk) 01:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 2, possibly 5 and 6, I honestly believe the motivation behind this is to get the material removed from the other article (see the vandalism link above) --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * can you provide more evidence on same - eg 2,5,6? Nonetheless the presence of an article about an academic has little to do with whether their writings can be included in an article so I wouldn't worry on that account. They are separate arguments.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, Beatriz Colomina is a founding directer at Princeton University, which would be one of the highest elected positions at the institution, as well as winning the 2003 Old Dominion Faculty Fellow. She has also won four (not three) grants, at the Chicago Institute for Architecture, Fondation Le Corbusier, the Graham Foundation, and the Center for Advanced Studies. She also has three books published, as well as essays in journals within her field. This is all on the page --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * please look at the criteria esp the more detailed criteria. # of books/articles is irrelevant, winning a grant is irrelevant, and being a director which is I think equivalent to chair is Also not qualifying. it's really about demonstrating her impact on the field - which could be done through citation analysis or establishing how one or more of her ideas have shaped a field in a significant fashion. THis is a borderline case frankly--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC).
 * Perhaps borderline, but on multiple criteria. To the above add also #1 as she is broadly cited. -- ELEKHHT 13:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't think the case for retention here is as strong as some of the above comments seems to believe.  Regarding the current state of the article, neither the MIT nor the Princeton reference are independent of the subject.  However, the Sydney Morning Herald reference is independent, and satisfies my threshold of significant coverage (it's not a mere interview, and doesn't just quote her and move on).  This is a reliable source, but as its largely a pure interview, I'm dubious about weighting it toward notability; however, this Performing Arts Journal review of one of her books indicates that her work has attracted attention within the field.  Now, arguably, that speaks to the notability of the book and not its author, but I don't think we gain from splitting hairs here, and on the balance, I think the scales tip in favor of inclusion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep "Founding director" is absolutely not the kind of "highest elected position" that WP:PROF talks about. University president, that would do it, a mere director not. "Old Dominion Faculty Fellow" does not seem to be any distinction at all, it just seems to be a discussion group. Obtaining grants (not "winning" them) is something all academics have to do in order to stay employed. Unless one of those grants was uniquely prestigious, this does not meet any of the criteria of PROF either. The same goes for publishing, whether books, essays, or articles and lecturing "throughout the world": every academic publishes, that's what they do, so this does not meet any of the PROF criteria either, unless those publications have been noted (book reviews, notable awards, for example). If the awards mentioned in the article can be verified and shown to be major awards, that might confer notability. What does go a long way towards meeting PROF#1, though, is Colomina's citation record. The above link to Google Scholar shows several very highly cited publications (one with more than 300 citations). --Randykitty (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Easily meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Has at least one book, Sexuality & space, currently in more than 500 major libraries worldwide according to WorldCat. Has an h-index of 15 based on GS, and at least 3 pubs with more than 100 citations.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ? this h-index is obtained only by including the cites in Google scholar with "[CITATION]". Is there some double counting here? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC).
 * Like Eric, I also get an h-index of 15 based on searching GS for "author:b-colomina". Two of the 15 hits have the same title but one appears to be a 2007 MIT Press book and the other a 1991 journal article so they appear not to be duplicates. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:13, 11 April 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.