Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cynthia A. Young


 * 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Cynthia A. Young

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not pass NPROF or NAUTHOR. Natureium (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article leaves much to be desired, but her book Soul Power is cited around 300 times according to Google Scholar, which is a high number of citations in its field. --Tataral (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I've made some cleanups to the article including updating her affiliation. I found five reviews of her one book; the number of reviews is ok but one book only is a little light with respect to WP:AUTHOR and a little problematic with respect to WP:BIO1E. And no matter how well cited it is, one publication is probably not enough for WP:PROF. And her rank and administrative position are not enough. So I think the best case is through WP:AUTHOR, but it's a weak one. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep For a solid pass of WP:AUTHOR, I like to see multiple reviews of multiple books &mdash; but at worst, we should be talking about moving this article to Soul Power: Culture, Radicalism and the Making of a U.S. Third World Left, since that book definitely meets WP:NBOOK. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete The book is notable, BLP1E and all that. &#x222F; WBG converse 09:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:AUTHOR clearly includes those who have written one book with multiple reviews in reputable sources. There is an argument for moving to an article on the book, but with academics a book typically refers to wider research interests and more general ideas that could be better covered in an article on the person. Article desperately needs improvement, not deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. As an associate professor and head of department at Penn State she is a well established academic. She has more publications than just this one book, but the book is clearly her most important work. Regardless, I think an article on just the book would be unnecessarily narrow in scope, and that an article on her is better and could include coverage of the book. We should keep in mind that in the humanities citation counts aren't very important. Her work also includes exhibitions and other non-traditional forms of publishing. She was one of the five authors of Witness: Art and Civil Rights in the Sixties which is held by about 400 libraries (roughly the same number of libraries that hold her book Soul Power) --Tataral (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep book review meet WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per Tataral's reasoning above. nonmodernist (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2019 (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.