Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elise Andaya


 * 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 No consensus. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Elise Andaya

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Searches turned up virtually nothing to suggest that she passes WP:GNG. A couple of trivial mention in News, and a few more trivial mentions in Books. A comment was made on the talk page making the argument that she passes NSCHOLAR, but with a high citation count of 32, she doesn't appear to pass WP:NSCHOLAR.  Onel 5969  TT me 11:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. She is an associate professor with a few moderately cited papers and some book awards. As her career progresses she may well make a larger impact in her field, but it is too soon for a Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarryGrandma (talk • contribs)
 * Keep she passes CREATIVE for attention given to her work in the form of reviews. I added 2 reviews to articles I have access to, but there are others. Here is the list of journals reviewing her work (some need subscriptions & EBSCO links are often hard to view, let me know if you need help): 1) New West Indian Guide, 2) Journal of Pan African Studies, 3) Latin American Politics and Society 4) Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society and 5) American Ethnologist. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Seems to fail WP:NSCHOLAR per nom. It doesn't seems right to judge the notability different scholars by different standards based on how they choose to publish their work (e.g. in book form vs. peer reviewed papers).  Seems like a fairly average anthropologist professor. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per our deletion and editing policies. The subject's notability and sourcing also seems adequate. Andrew D. (talk) 23:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not pass notability criteria. I'm not in the business of stretching our criteria beyond all reason to satisfy misplaced inclusionism. Like most people, there won't be enough written about the subject until 100 years hence, which is honestly more fair than what we're attempting right now. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 03:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:Prof as GS cites are far too small for high-cited field of pop-pschology WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC).
 * Keep - This Associate Professor passes both WP:NSCHOLAR and WP:CREATIVE. Netherzone (talk) 02:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- published at least one book with a Uni publisher:
 * CONCEIVING CUBA: REPRODUCTION, WOMEN, AND THE STATE IN THE POST-SOVIET ERA, by Elise Andaya (Rutgers University Press; 192 pages; $80 hardcover, $26.95 paperback). Examines new constraints on women considering motherhood given Cuba's economic troubles in the post-Soviet period.
 * With the additional sources above, it's a Keep for me. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Just publishing stuff does not contribute to notability. Only 17 sources have cited the book. Usually one starts looking for for 1000 cites WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC).


 * Delete, not seeing notability here for a stand alone article. Average associate professor at this point as presented. Kierzek (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- The article reveals that she has published one monograph, no doubt a tidied up version of her doctoral thesis. I do not think that ought to be enough to pass SCHOLAR.  She seems currently to be a young lecturer.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  20:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: With a reminder that WP:NSCHOLAR is not the only applicable policy and that she might be worthy of inclusion if WP:NCREATIVE, WP:BASIC or WP:GNG are met. Unfortunately, the discussion so far has been long but largely without substance. Please remember that just saying "Fails X" or "Passes Y" is not helpful without explanation why this is the case. Some discussion of the sources Meganlibrarygirl mentioned might also be helpful to determine the subject's notability. No point in closing this as "no consensus" at this time though if further discussion might actually yield a definitive outcome, so relisting it is.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  17:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete An average Associate Professor, without the academic rank, or quantity and quality of publications expected in comparison to WP:NSCHOLAR. Her CV only lists THREE publications in peer-reviewed journals. Does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BIO either, at least at this career stage, ten years after getting the PhD. . Not everyone who gets a PhD and lands a job at a university is automatically entitled to a bio article in Wikipedia. Edison (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Dleete Per previous by Edison. Has not received significant coverage from third party sources. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  19:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment, with the reviews listed by, Andaya's book Conceiving Cuba meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG so is entitled to a wikiarticle, so do we want one on the author and one on the book, an article on the book with a paragraph about the author, or an article about the author which, at the moment, is mainly about the book? Coolabahapple (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Your assertion goes against WP:NOTINHERITED. If Conceiving Cuba were notable you could write an article about that and include something about the author. Per WP:NAUTHOR, this subject is not "entitled" to an article. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 12:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , WP:NBOOK - "1.The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3]", with the reviews listed above, Conceiving Cuba meets this so an article can be written about it, oops, i meant WP:AUTHOR - "3.The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.", is a book that a wikiarticle can be written about a "well-known work"? thus meeting author?, btw WorldCat shows it being held by around 740 libraries, another tick in the "well-known work" box, so author/creative may be met. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree. When we're talking about an author creating a well-known work, we're talking about William Shakespeare creating Hamlet, and a work like Hamlet and His Problems analyzing that play is notable, itself. Even if no one ever wrote about Shakespeare he would be notable for his works receiving notable examination; at least that's how I read it. As regarding libraries holding copies, WP:BKTS says specifically "meeting these threshold standards does not imply that a book is notable". You could make a case that the book is notable because of independent reviews but that's not enough to make the book's author notable. If we went by your standard then every book that got three or four reviews would be notable as would that book's author, which is ludicrous. Regardless, there's no determination that the book is notable because the article doesn't exist and it might get deleted if it did. Again, what's the rush? We don't need articles about living authors. We could write a much better, more responsible article once they're dead. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 13:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So, hang on, there should only be wikiarticles on books that are of the calibre of Hamlet or that analyze/critique such books, so at the most a couple of hundred articles and on authors only when they are dead, who are the calibre of Shakespeare, so another 50-100? mmmm .... what about people in other fields? academics, members of the military, artists? are they also only worthy of a wikiarticle when they are dead? but then looking at some of your article creations ie. Robin Fontes, Marina Amaral, Seymour Van Gundy, you don't seem to think so. ps. i didn't say that library holdings made a book notable only that it might show that it is well known, anyway, i'm sure you must have meant to preface your above response with a  or end it with a  ps. its not my standard about 3 or 4 reviews, its what nbook (actually 2 or more:)) states. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason not to include an individual who has received several reviews from reliable sources in our Encyclopedia. There are other types of criteria inclusion that are an even lower bar and no one has problems with those in different areas, such as sports. It's not like we are going to "run out of room" on the encyclopedia. The argument that it "waters down" the credibility of Wikipedia to include individuals like the subject of this article are also not valid. If someone's work is reviewed through reliable sources, and in this case, scholarly journals, they are not just nobodies. These are not easy accomplishments. I'm a librarian and I can tell you that not every book gets reviewed: only books that are significant do. The subject of this article passes CREATIVE, as I and have pointed out. If you don't like the inclusion criteria of CREATIVE or AUTHOR, and you feel it needs to be so strict that only authors of Shakespeare's caliber can pass it, then we need to talk about that in a different venue. Until then, the fact is that this person has received notice of their work in multiple reliable sources. This is significant. If we hold the bar at Shakespeare, almost no author would pass and we would fail at writing an encyclopedia that is useful to all people. In addition, articles about living authors are indeed useful to the general public. We are a creating an encyclopedia that can be edited and updated at any time. There's no reason to wait for a person to be dead to write about them on Wikipedia. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me emphasize that I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't care. I'm just dispassionately applying the criterion. Yes, I found it silly that WP:NBASE extends to anyone that ever played a single game in KBO League baseball or that WP:NRODEO extends to Hall of Fame Bucking bulls but it's not up to me. If I thought the subject met the criteria, then I'd !vote keep. As I read it, there's a general belief from some that Wikipedia should just have articles on everybody and the fact that a few people reviewed a book (not the author, the book) then somehow the author of that book is notable. I think that idea lives in your imagination, not CREATIVE. I'm not seeing anyone refute my points; I just see this WP:NOTPAPER argument as if we can just cancel WP:N on a whim. I've seen more-powerful editors than either of you more or less say SCHOOLOUTCOMES remained the law of the land even after an RfC explicitly said otherwise. If you want to make the argument, go ahead. Maybe the closing admin will believe you. Show me this author won a Pulitzer Prize or had their life-story turned into a movie, or something. I'm just not seeing it here. It's nothing personal. I'm just frustrated by this apparent disconnect with what the criteria says and what you seem to want it to say. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 17:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "more-powerful editors than either of you"?, "SCHOOLOUTCOMES"?, huh? Coolabahapple (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I, too am applying notability standards in this discussion and have refuted your points: you just don't agree with my interpretations. I, too am frustrated by readings of notability standards and I bring up NOTPAPER only to gently remind all of us that there is plenty of space on Wikipedia for us to build. You assert that I am "imagining" that this person passes CREATIVE. But CREATIVE says in 4(c): "The person's work (or works) (c) has won significant critical attention." That's what it says, not what I imagined. I'm not making the standards say anything they don't. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think those reviews qualify as "significant critical attention". We can disagree. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: Significant publications, notable coverage.  The concept of "thousands of citations" is a red herring -- for example, in law, people rarely cite each other's works, they cite legal cases, so a major legal scholar may have dozens, not hundreds of others citing their work.  Here, we have awards won, content published, grants awarded, coverage of all of the above.  This is more than adequate indicia of notability.   Montanabw (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficient R/S, over time to establish notability, as shown by reviews provided by and, , . Totally agree with number of citations not being indicative of weight of publication, as numerous academic studies have proven that it is indeed a red herring.,  SusunW (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2017 (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.