Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harriet Baber


 * 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) — Yashtalk stalk 11:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Harriet Baber

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:NACADEMIC. Unable to locate any secondary sources--written about her--to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   18:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   18:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   18:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:Too soon. I can find plenty of secondary sources on GS including one book with 353 cites, which is getting close to passing WP:Prof for a low cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC).. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC).
 * There's no doubt she is well published, as are many academics. Were you able to find any secondary source biographies about her?  Thanks.  Magnolia677 (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * More than that: she is well cited (although in this case it may be marginal). See WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC).
 * No, the 353 cites are for a book by someone else (In Defense Of Affirmative Action by Barbara Bergmann). Baber's top cites are 31, 23, and 13. StAnselm (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Noted. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC).


 * Keep as WP:AUTHOR; multiple non-trivial reviews & decent library holdings. Sample reviews:
 * Review of The Multicultural Mystique: The Liberal Case against Diversity, by H. E. Baber (2008). By Swartz, Omar. Howard Journal of Communications, Jul 01, 2010; Vol. 21, No. 3, p. 315-318: The article reviews the book "The Multicultural Mystique: The Liberal Case Against Div... more


 * The Multicultural Mystique: The Liberal Case against Diversity.By GURSOZLU, FUAT. Teaching Philosophy, Sep 01, 2013; Vol. 36, No. 3, p. 300-303: The article reviews the book "The Multicultural Mystique: The Liberal Case Against Div... more


 * Review: The multicultural mystique. By Kelly, Paul. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, Sep 01, 2014; Vol. 35, No. 6, p. 622-624


 * The Multicultural Mystique: The Liberal Case against Diversity. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Oct 01, 2008; Vol. 28, No. 5: The article reviews the book "The Multicultural Mystique: The Liberal Case against Div... more. Etc.
 * K.e.coffman (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I may have missed it, but where in WP:AUTHOR does it discuss "multiple non-trivial reviews & decent library holdings"? Thank you.  Magnolia677 (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I might have confused this with WP:OUTCOMES; pls see: Articles for deletion/Common outcomes: "Published authors are kept as notable if they have received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work, or if their work is likely to be very widely read." Also, AUTHOR does refer to reviews: "In addition, such work must have been the primary subject (...) of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep as above. I also note that one of her papers was anthologised in Soble's Philosophy of Sex, that she edited a volume of The Monist on multiculturalism (funnily enough, the issue in our article on the journal) and has significant space devoted to her views on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on feminist moral psychology by Anita Superson. This suggests that there are at least three areas of philosophy (and I've not looked very hard) where she is an important name. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - passes WP:PROF #1 per Josh Milburn. StAnselm (talk) 05:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as per K.e.coffman.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Agree with assessment of . Hmlarson (talk) 05:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Neutral - It looks like I created this article. Although I was once frequent editor, I no longer am. So I'll respect my lack of credibility due bias and infrequency, leaving it up to you experts to decide what to do. (Utopial (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC))
 * Hey, welcome back! Thanks for stopping by, anyway, even if you won't stay. In any case, it looks like the article will stay. StAnselm (talk) 00:28, 28 April 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.