Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly M. Lewis


 * 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 delete. J04n(talk page) 17:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Holly M. Lewis

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

While her book may or may not be notable, this assistant prof does not appear to meet notability criteria. The commonality of her name made WP:BEFORE difficult, but I could not find any in-depth coverage from independent, reliable secondary sources to show she meets WP:GNG. All of the coverage are reviews about her book. And she clearly does not meet WP:NPROF.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

*Delete fail WP:NPROF; fails WP:AUTHOR, philosophy book put out by a minor publisher that got no reviews on JSTOR, only a couple of online reviews in very small socialist publications.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC) E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think she or her book meet notability guidelines fpr Wikipedia content. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Regret the article is terrible and maybe it is WP:TOOSOON for this professor but reviews for her book are very enthusiastic and I must regret losing the bio of someone who in her spare time wrote, directed, and produced a film about The Terrorist She Freaks of Texas. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The book has multiple published reviews and there are reliable sources (but not reviews that I could find) for the film. And the Concordia source also looks reliable and in-depth. I think there's a case to be made for WP:CREATIVE, but it's a weak one. Incidentally, her work on Plato (which I removed from the article as too minor and boring to highlight — it's merely additional material for a translation by someone else) is under the name "Holly Davidson Lewis", but other sources (e.g. her cv) make clear that this is the same person as the "Holly M. Lewis" that we're discussing here. So editors looking for sources on this subject should be careful about the multiplicity of names. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not pass WP:Prof unless citations to her work can be found. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC).
 * Keep She passes GNG because her views are covered by independent reliable sources (Peer-reviewed academic journals). Ali Pirhayati (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Which peer reviewed academic journals? Xxanthippe (talk) 07:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC).
 * Critical Social Policy. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 07:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding. There is apparently one book review, which I have been unable to download. I cannot find a single citation to it on Google scholar. Much more is needed. Compare to Articles for deletion/Dorothy Cheney (scientist) with 32,673 GS citations (not as much as this is needed,but more). Fails WP:Prof at present as WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC).
 * Experimental scientists cannot be compared with human scientists. They are totally different worlds and the number of citations in human sciences (particularly philosophy) is not that important in notability. I think it is clear that the current article has independent reliable sources (if not "academic" sources) and it passes GNG (if not WP:Prof). If you think the sources are not reliable or independent, let's check them one by one. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It has long been accepted that citation rates vary by field, so philosophers are compared with other philosophers. Many of these have significant citation records, This one has zero so a pass of WP:Prof is not possible. Can you point to other BIOs of philosophy academics on Wikipedia whose work has received zero citations? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC).
 * Although she can be said to somehow possess criterion 7, I accept she does not pass WP:PROF and I stick by GNG.Ali Pirhayati (talk) 08:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per David Eppstein. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Under which category? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC).


 * Delete I withdrew last week, due to lack of time to examine the new sourcing and argument. The film appears to have gotten no attention aside from a listing in the things-to-do-section of a newspaper and a listing by the British film Institute which appears to run an IMDB type list, neither of which contributes to notability. Nor can I find additional sources on the film or on Lewis that do. Of the 4 book reviews, 2 appear  minor, online political publications, , where it is framed not as scholarship but as an "a landmark work of engaged revolutionary politics."  The review in the minor scholarly journal Critical Theory (not bluelinked) similarly frames it as a less a work of scholarship than it is a "political project...The arguments in The Politics of Everybody are not evidenced in the way that we might expect from an academic text...  Holly Lewis seeks to move both political debate, and perhaps more importantly, political action forward. The 4th, in Socialist Review is unenthusiastic.  One of the reviews reads " Lewis and I are comrades in arms and friendly sparring partners. We agree much more often than we disagree." and the fact that the reviews appear in formally Socialist publications makes it possible that they are not independent of the author.   Be that as it may, the book did not receive warm reviews, was not reviewed in mainstream publications or in the major academic journals, and appears to have made little impression in the worlds of politics or ideas, neither the book nor Lewis are widely cited.   In short, Lewis (an assistant professor at a minor university,)  appears to be a minor academic who has produces a film that got no attention, written a very minor book, and no important articles. Perhaps it is merely WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, gosh, I had missed the fact that this is a brand-spanking-new article created by User:Pirhayati, the only editor making repeated, strong arguments to keep it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * E.M.Gregory, in addition to Ali Pirhayati, there are quite a few other editors arguing here to keep the article. Surely it does not deserve mockery or even surprise that someone who went to the trouble to create an article wants it kept. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I was only surprised that it had not been mentioned (and that I had not noticed - No mockery was intended except self-mockery.) It is usual for an article creator making a comment at AfD to note that s/he is the article creator.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Your comments only show that one of the sources may not be independent and that she is not academically-notable. But my argument that she passes GNG still is the case. You said "...that the reviews appear in formally Socialist publications makes it possible that they are not independent of the author"? What does it mean? For example, if reviews of the works of a structuralist thinker appear in journals which publish articles on structuralism, the reviews will not be independent!? I think Lewis passes GNG because the article has at least three "independent reliable" sources which cover her ideas "significantly" (means "not trivial"). Then you can provide a counterargument by showing that the sources are not 1. reliable or 2. independent or 3. significant. I can't see such a counterargument in your comments.Ali Pirhayati (talk) 09:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete E.M. Gregory's analysis basically shows that 1-Lewis's work does not rise to the level of a major contribution. 2-Wikipedia already has way too much of a presentist bias, keeping an article like this on an unremarkable activist leftist professor, just adds to this overcoverage of the present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not professor, Assistant professor (who are almost never notable). Xxanthippe (talk) 09:42, 23 May 2018 (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.