Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeanne Mackin


 * 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) Automatic Strikeout  ( T  •  C ) 01:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Jeanne Mackin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seems not to satisfy the criteria in WP:AUTHOR. I could find only material associated directly with the subject; brief reviews in trade rags such as Publishers Weekly (and republications of these in minor newspapers), blogs, and sites such as Goodreads; and a profile of her in the Ithaca Times, a newspaper for which she writes. Her faculty position at Goddard College is unlikely to satisfy WP:ACADEMIC. The only thing which gave me pause is the fellowship from the American Antiquarian Society, but I can't find any evidence that this is a particularly notable award. Ditto the rest of the awards. Alexrexpvt (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. The American Antiquarian Society is highly notable by itself as well as for its former members which include several Presidents of the United States and highly notable Americans such as:


 * A fellowship at the society puts Mackin at the same level of those aforementioned within the context of the organziation. This is enough merit for notability, not per WP:AUTHOR, but per WP:ACADEMIC as established by the following clause:


 * Her fellowship at the American Antiquarian Society is considered "a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor".


 * &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 13:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't say I'm completely convinced. A Fellowship of the Royal Society, for instance, is awarded only to "the most eminent scientists, engineers and technologists from the UK and the Commonwealth". Fellowships at the AAS, by contrast, are awarded to Ph.D. candidates, assistant professors, etc. In that sense they're more like post-doctoral fellowships or research grants, which usually aren't enough to make a person notable. That the AAS is itself notable doesn't automatically confer notability any more than being a fellow or post-doctoral researcher at an Oxbridge college. The award she received, incidentally, is given to non-academics, so again it wouldn't confer notability under WP:ACADEMIC. It's possible though that an AAS fellowship is more like a Guggenheim fellowship, in which case she would be notable, but, as I said in my nomination, I haven't seen any evidence that this is the case. Perhaps someone else knows more. Obviously if it is a notable award, I'll happily withdraw my nomination. Alexrexpvt (talk) 13:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It does not matter if you are convinced or not. Your conviction is irrelevant. So is the fact that some fellowships are awarded to Ph.D. candidates and assistant professors. The policy does not care to whom is it given nor what profession do they hold. What is relevant here is wether a fellowship at the AAS is "a highly selective honor" within the society. If you look at the requirements for the fellowships at http://www.americanantiquarian.org/?q=node/6 the fellowship meets that criteria. It is not given to all applicants; it is a selective process. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So your argument is that being the recipient of an award for non-academics makes someone a notable academic? The link you've provided says nothing about the requirements for the fellowships. This page says only that they're given to various creative professionals "whose goals are to produce imaginative, non-formulaic works dealing with pre-twentieth-century American history". It says nothing about the award being "selective", much less "highly selective". And the guidelines do not say that the award has to be a "'highly selective honour' within the society"; it's quite clear that "highly selective honour" is used in an absolute sense. The examples given, the Royal Society, National Academies of Sciences, the IEEE, are all at the very highest levels of attainment: fellows of the RS are likely also to be holders of named or distinguished professorships, highly-cited in their field, in many cases winners of the Nobel Prize, and so on. To follow your reasoning, anyone who receives anything called a fellowship that isn't simply handed out to any bypasser automatically merits a page on Wikipedia, but a full professor at Harvard or Cambridge, say, doesn't. It's especially absurd, and I feel I can't emphasize this enough, in the case of a "fellowship" that is not given in recognition of academic work. The guideline specifically says that it is "meant to reflect consensus about the notability of academics as measured by their academic achievements". The subject of the article doesn't have any, apart from being on the faculty of Goddard College, which doesn't come close to satisfying criterion #5. (I should also point out that in the notes to criterion #1 "visiting appointments" are said to be "insufficient" for the purposes of establishing notability: the fellowship for creative and performing artists is a visiting appointment of at least four weeks' duration, with a small stipend. The other fellowships, neither of which she won, are specifically identified as post-doctoral fellowships, e. g., here and here. Post-doctoral fellowships are also excluded in the notes to criterion #1). Alexrexpvt (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't put words in my mouth. You need to understand the policy, so I'm gonna trim it down for you:


 * We need to figure out if this is true for Mackin since it's self-evident that she is a scholar. So, let's look at it in parts:


 * Is the AAS a "major scholarly society"? We have already established that to be true per the comments above.


 * Now, is a fellowship at the AAS, "a highly selective honor"? There are only 47 fellows in the whole world for the 2012-2013 fiscal year per . That's 1 in about 150,000,000 persons in the world. That's quite selective and quite an honor. It also seems that you missed the part where it states that the fellowship is for historical research per . It is not given solely for being a creative professional with a PhD.


 * Furthermore, what other societies do, or what criteria is used for other scholars to establish their notability, or wether you consider this fellowship to not be an honor in comparison to others is irrelevant. We are dealing with Mackin and Mackin alone, and clause #3 of WP:ACADEMIC which she satisfies completely.


 * The fellowship and Mackin satisfy the whole policy: the fellowship is given for historical research, by a major scholarly society, and is considered a highly selective honor. Our opinion and feelings on the matter are irrelevant.


 * &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any new arguments, so I'll give a WP:TLDR summary of my last argument:
 * 1) The AAS's fellowships are either post-doctoral fellowships or fellowships awarded to non-academic creative types "for historical research" (i. e., to conduct historical research to benefit their art, not in recognition of work already done).
 * 2) The former come under and are excluded by criterion #1; the latter aren't covered by WP:ACADEMIC at all.
 * 3) That the society is scholarly and the awards given to few is irrelevant: this is true of all post-doc fellowships. See (2). The examples given in the guidelines (The Royal Society, etc.) are there to guard against this sort of confusion.
 * 4) Even if it were an academic fellowship, it would still be excluded under criterion #1 as a visiting appointment.
 * 5) Relevant guidelines: "significant academic awards and honors may include [...] highly selective fellowships (other than postdoctoral fellowships)"; "standard research grants [and] visiting appointments [...] are insufficient for this purpose [i. e., establishing notability]" (both from the notes to criterion #1).
 * 6) To summarize: this is a visiting appointment given to conduct research, but not in recognition of research, to non-academics, and satisfies not a single criterion of WP:ACADEMIC. Alexrexpvt (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:SCHOLAR covers fellows, period. The definition of a "fellow" is pretty clear:


 * Wether Mackin was a postdoc or whatever is irrelevant. The society considers her a fellow, period. Criterion #1 does not cover anything about being a visiting appointment, I don't even know from where you are getting that from. Furthermore, the example given in the policy about the Royal Society is just that, an example. The policy does not state that every single organization must be exactly like the Royal Society. We have already established the AAS to be notorious and considered a major scholarly society, per WP:SCHOLAR.


 * You are also failing to notice that our criteria establishes that only one criteria must be fullfilled to be considered notable. Here's the excerpt for you:


 * Meckin meets at least one criteria (criteria #3) as evidenced by reliable sources and is, therefore, notable.


 * You are also failing to notice the use of an "or" in the criteria. Here, I'm gonna copy it for you and bold it:


 * Which means that Meckin satisfies the statement as an or does not establish that all statements must be fulfilled.


 * &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

. OK i just noticed from where the confusion is striving from. You are trying to exclude Criterion #3 by applying Criterion #1's notes. But you need to understand that the criterions are independent from each other and stand by their own. In other words, the policy states that as long as the scholar satisfies at least one criterion she is considered notable. This is what happens to Meckin, which satisfies notability per Criterion #3 which is not excluded nor superseded by other criteria. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC) 
 * Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Lacks evidence that American Antiquarian Society fellowship is highly selective. Article was created in defiance of Wikipedia core principle. Wikipedia is not a means of promotionn.  duffbeerforme (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Struck due to Sionk's sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 00:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - I've no idea how or why this article was allowed through AfC in its current state. However, Mackin has clearly published many books over a substantial period and there is evidence they have been reviewed in reliable publications, for example THE SWEET BY & BY in the Baltimore Sun and Kirkus, while Dreams of Empire has been reviewed by Publishers Weekly and Kirkus. She is likely to pass WP:AUTHOR. Sionk (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per WP:BASIC since there seems to be multiple independent sources here. I agree with the nominator on one thing though, I don't think the article meets the Criterion 3 of WP:ACADEMIC too. As an example, IEEE fellowships are offered to those "whose extraordinary accomplishments in any of the IEEE fields of interest are deemed fitting of this prestigious grade elevation" while AAS Creative and Performing Artists and Writers fellowships are given to "people who are creating works of art or non-fiction in any discipline designed for general, non-academic audiences." Criterion 3 seeks if the academic has a great record of accomplishments on her or his field, so much that they are recognized by a major scholarly society, not a simple limited-time permission for research by one. Nimuaq (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I fail to see where WP:ACADEMIC states that Criterion #3 qualifies "if the academic has a great record of accomplishments on her or his field, so much that they are recognized by a major scholarly society". Could you please point out where does the guideline state such thing? &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:ACADEMIC is there to judge the "impact of a researcher in his or her field" to answer "does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished than others in the field?" "The impact of one's academic research" was the main concern when it was changed in 2008. The previous version did not have any mention of fellowships, but it was needed since the Mass speedy deletion of Fellows of the Royal Society. You can see on that discussion how being a fellow of those societies were seen as awards, which would establish notability in the old version. AAS Creative and Performing Artists and Writers fellowship is not an indication of "impact of one's academic research", it is a simple permission for research on their archives, and thus I don't think she really meets the spirit of that guideline. Nimuaq (talk) 09:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - There is ample evidence supporting Mackin's published works have been reviewed in reliable publications, indicating that she meets the criteria for WP:AUTHOR. Another example, her mystery novels penned under the name Anna Maclean were written about by Pulitzer Prize winner Alison Laurie in The New York Review of Books.Collinjkd (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2013 (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.