Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheryl Rubenberg


 * 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) Erik9 (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheryl Rubenberg

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article does not establish notability. Specifically, the subject does not appear to satisfy any of the 9 criteria for academics laid out in Notability (academics), and there is no indication of how she would be notable otherwise. This article was prod'ed a long time ago, with the prod removed, by an editor asserting that the fact she authored 6 books is enough of a claim to notability. I disagree. Another editor has recently questioned her notability, so AfD seems like the next logical step. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 02:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete As nominator. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 03:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. GS gives h index = 5, which does not look hopeful for WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC).
 * Comment. Rubenberg is known for writing about Palestine, Israel and related US foreign policy issues. Some disagree with her writings or point of view. That and her 6 books seems notable enough.  She might even be here, but I dunno.  I suspect that some better deletion sorting into the I/P conflict area is also appropriate for a full response.  CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So, you don't know if she's listed in The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America or not, but assert her notability regardless, because she "might" be there.-. (I checked, she's not). You assert that she "is known for writing about Palestine, Israel and related US foreign policy issues" - yet nothing in the article shows she is notable for any of these things. Writing 6 books is, not surprisingly, NOT one of the notability criteria of WP:Prof. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC).
 * I didn't know and said so. But you obviously have that book, so thanks for refuting my improper lack-of-AGF suspicion. I, on the other hand, do have one of the author's books, and will continue to use it for references within Wikipedia. Blue link or red, it is SoS in the narrative wars, but I feel NPOV should give equal credence to RSs on both sides.  Your library, apparently, provides a different view; your view of NPOV apparently differs also. CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * what does this have to do with NPOV? Or with RS? This is an AfD discussion about the notability of an academic - she either meets the criteria spelled out in WP:PROF or she doesn't. You can continue to use her publications as RS regardless of the outcome of this discussion. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Evidently notable per John Z. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Known and respected enough in her field. Editor of the forthcoming Encyclopedia of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.  Here is a review of maybe her best known book (at least to me) by Aaron David Miller, and here is another one, calling it important, as  the quotes from Richard Falk and Fred Khouri here support.  Some more reviews of other books:, ,  (Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies calls her Palestinian Women: Patriarchy and Resistance in the West Bank "a very important book"), also reviewed here.John Z (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep John Z's reasons are sufficient. Zerotalk 08:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  —John Z (talk) 07:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions.  —John Z (talk) 07:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as sources found by John Z are enough to satisfy WP:AUTHOR point 3: "The person has created… a collective body of work, that has been the subject of… multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." --Qwfp (talk) 09:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. There appears to be a discrepancy between WP:Prof #1 which on these pages in the past has required hundreds of citations, and the interpretation of the editor above who finds that seven reviews satisfy WP:Author. It seems that it depends on how one interprets "multiple". Xxanthippe (talk) 09:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC).
 * I think there's a crucial distinction between a citation of a work, and a work being the subject of an article or review. Most academic articles contain dozens of citations, so on average you'd expect an academic article to be cited dozens of times (eventually), but few academic articles are ever the subject of independent articles or reviews. --Qwfp (talk) 09:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a good point. Are we moving to a position where one dedicated review is equivalent to n citations, where n is some number around 12? Xxanthippe (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC).
 * Comment. Such an expectation would unfortunately be wrong. A large fraction of academic articles are never cited, not even "eventually", implying they have not been influential. This is largely why AfD for WP:PROF has evolved toward using citation counts for journal articles, number of holding libraries for books, etc. rather than the actual numbers of articles or books that have been published. WP:PROF would appear to apply here since she was evidently a tenured professor at one time and has published all her books on academic topics through academic-oriented publishing houses. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC).
 * When I said "on average" above, I guess I should have specified that the arithmetic mean was the average I had in mind. I agree that the median number of cites is very low, and the mode is probably zero, but the arithmetic mean must be well into double figures for most fields. I'm certainly not arguing for using number of works published. I've always assumed that notability is established if the subject satisfies any of the different notability criteria (WP:PROF, WP:ATHLETE, WP:AUTHOR etc.) rather than having to decide which one best applies. Regards, Qwfp (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. With all due respect, I quite understood what you meant. Actual citation distributions probably follow something like a Power law, for which the arithmetic mean may not even converge – not a meaningful descriptor here. More to the point, I appreciate the philosophy of choosing the "lowest notability bar", but this is valid only among mutually-exclusive categories, e.g. WP:ATHLETE and WP:AUTHOR in your example. In essence, all academics are authors – WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR are not exclusive – but, the details of this case point very conspicuously to WP:PROF (academic position, academic publications, etc). I understand also that you consider "work being the subject of an article or review" to be very significant, and perhaps under WP:AUTHOR this does carry more weight. But, reviews of academic books are quite common (e.g. lots appear weekly in CHE, they're in every issue of numerous academic journals, etc.) and these alone do not necessarily signify notability. This subject may well be notable, but I think the assessment must be measured against WP:PROF in the conventional way. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC).
 * Actually, WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR do seem to be exclusive. WP:AUTHOR #5 says "See Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for guidelines on academics". WP:AUTHOR does not seem to be an alternate, with a lower threshold, for academics who don't cut it under WP:PROF. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 03:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We are supposed to interpret the guidelines using common sense. Anyway, she is not an academic any more. Zerotalk 04:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think common sense in this case says that if WP:AUTHOR #5 says "See Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for guidelines on academics", we use WP:Prof. I also think that common sense tells us that if an academic fails WP:Prof, we don't lower the bar for them so that their academic publications get a 2nd bite at the apple, and are evaluated by the lower standard of general publications. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 04:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So a weak academic who writes 100 best-selling popular novels won't get a Wikipedia article. Sounds like common sense to me. Zerotalk 04:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per John Z. Her book reviews show interest from some well-known academics; she gets 84,100 google hits as Cheryl A. Rubenberg, 312 on google books, 231 on google scholar. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Seaching for 'author:"cheryl a rubenberg"' on GS shows cites of 41, 19, 15, 12, 12, 11, 8.... which is hardly adequate for WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC).
 * Actually it is adequate, but also irrelevant. Since she is no longer working as an academic those criteria are not the ones to apply.  She is notable according to WP:AUTHOR.  Zerotalk 00:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:AUTHOR #5 says "See Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for guidelines on academics". WP:AUTHOR does not seem to be an alternate, with a lower threshold, for academics who don;t cut it under WP:PROF. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 03:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It does seem to be inadequate for WP:Prof #1 by the standards that have been applied historically on these pages. An h index of between 10 and 15 seems usually taken to be borderline; above and below that clear cut. Of course, decisions are not made on the basis of one number but by examining the details. The h here is 7. You need to argue, as you do, on other grounds. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC).
 * No I don't need to argue it on other grounds. The problem is that the h-index is not suitable as a sole (or even main) measure of notability. There is too much variation between disciplines (as it says in h-index, 3 in mathematics equals 9 in biology) and other problems. And there are other measures too: only a very tiny fraction of academics publish 6 or more books, for example. Zerotalk 04:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Criterion 1 of WP:PROF inquires whether: "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Notability_(academics) #1 notes that "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work." But that is not the only way: "Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications[3], can be considered together with ordinary citations here."  Footnote 3 relevantly mentions " ... the content of the review and any evaluative comments made there may be used for that purpose." (of satisfying criterion 1).John Z (talk) 06:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A fine display of Wikilawyering all round! Instead of arguing over the minutiae and interpretation of WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR etc., why not just state in your own words why you think she is or isn't notable enough for an encyclopedia entry? These are guidelines, and all of them defer to the general notability guidelines, which is that if she's been the subject of indepth coverage by multiple independent reliable sources she should probably have an article. These damn guidelines with their umpteen clauses get in the way of reasoned discussion. Citation counting isn't objective as citation rates vary widely between academic fields.
 * John Z's sources, alongside frequent quotations in books, news sources and scholarly articles over the past three decades tip me to recommending that we keep the article. Fences &amp;  Windows  22:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as an author, which in this case is clearer than as an academic: from WorldCat Identities,  About 9 published books, of which the most widely held are in 809  (The Palestinians : in search of a just peace ) and 639 (Israel and the American national interest : a critical examination ) WorldCat libraries, which is just the US and much of Canada and a scattering of the other libraries . This is indicative of a major author, and very high counts for  non-fiction. At least one of the books is  published by a major academic press (U.Ill. for Israel and the American national interest      The other method of judging is book reviews. According to Book Review Digest, "The Plaestinians"has been reviewed in Choice, The Middle East Journal, MultiCultural Review and International Journal of Middle East Studies v. 38 no. 4 (Nov. 2006). Isreal and the american nat. interest has been reviewed by America Choice, Library Journal , Political Science Quarterly , The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , Asian Affairs,  International Affairs , International Journal of Middle East Studies , Political Science Quarterly  , The Middle East Journal -- Such reviews , including two by the very selective academic book review Choice, and one  by the popular selective review Library Journal, are clear evidence that her work is considered important . (btw, Book Review Index is available in every academic and medium sized public library, usually remotely for those holding library cards, so there is no excuse not using it here routinely.)
 * As for the h-indexes they are thoroughly useless in the humanities of related social sciences. They represent only citations in other academic journals, not in books, which is where most of the action is in these subjects.) Even  in the sciences, if one has published 10 papers with 10 citations each,m the h index  is 10; if one has published 9 with 100 citations and one with 10, the h-index is also 10--but these show very different standards of notability. Reducing our decisions to h index determination is not much of a step up over reducing them to Google counts, and I consequently completely reject Xantippe's method of analysis.   DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A straw man is being attacked here and I'm not even sure what the charge is. An h index from GS will incorporate cites to many books; one from WoS may not. DGG is correct in saying that statistical distributions can give distorted evidence in extreme conditions; usually they don't. It does not mean that statistics are valueless, they just need to be interpreted with care. That is why in this case I quoted the individual leading cites. The opinion of several commentators on this AfD seem to be that although the subject may not satisfy WP:Prof #1 in regard to citations she may satisfy WP:Author. This is consistent with the views that I have expressed. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC).


 * Keep DGG and Zero break it down better than I could, but this is a notable author as seen in the reviews in selective publications of her work.  nableezy  - 15:12, 18 August 2009 (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.