Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joan Faber McAlister


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Joan Faber McAlister

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Doesn't pass WP:NPROF as far as I can tell; no books to help pass WP:NAUTHOR either. The things that look like books in this article are actually journal articles - this is one of those WikiEdu assignments, where the students profile a scholar and a few pieces of their work, that can make a person look a lot more notable than they really are. Maintenance tagged for reliance on primary sources since 2017; I cut the long chunk of CV-style material from the end, but then realized she isn't notable in the first place. asilvering (talk) 08:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 08:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 08:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 08:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 08:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. No pass of WP:Prof: WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC).
 * Delete I support this deletion for all the reasons listed in the maintenance tag. This article reads like PR and I've tried unsuccessfully to find any good sources. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep She was the editor of Women's Studies in Communication from 2014 until 2017 and therefore meets criteria #8 of WP:PROF (The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area). DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not a "well-established journal". Xxanthippe (talk) 10:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC).
 * Isn't it? It's been around for decades. I didn't think that brief EIC stint was enough for NPROF either, but it's not my field, and I don't know if there are any guidelines about how "well-established" is defined. -- asilvering (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I buy the WP:NPROF C8 pass.  In addition to the editorial found by, she's clearly listed at the top of the board in the ending matter at the same issue .  The extensive primary-sourced "Scholarly work" section in the article should probably be removed or stubbified.  Weak because an NPROF C8 pass generally includes more evidence of progress towards WP:NPROF C1. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I completely agree about editing down the lengthy scholarly work section, but I am not sure what is the best summary of that section. DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I was just going to remove the three paragraphs on the articles rather than summarize them, as the simplest and fastest way to solve the issue, before I nominated this for AfD. This is actually an unusually good example of this format of WikiEdu article, so they've got a paragraph at the top of that section that explains her work more broadly already. But if someone wants to put more work into it they're welcome to (though I recommend waiting for the end of the AfD in case some pro-delete votes pour in at the end). -- asilvering (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * keep I agree that some of the text reads like a synopsis, which isn't what is usually done in an academic bio. Kudos to anyone who can take on editing that. I added some more writings because what was there made it look like she only published in the same journal that she edited, which would be a red flag. Women's Studies in Communication (assuming I have reached the correct record) is listed in Worldcat as an ejournal held in 930 libraries. As many libraries do not contribute to WorldCat, and of those that do not all create entries for ejournals (depending on whether they come as in a package, etc.), I would say that this is a major publication. This is also evidenced by the fact that it is a Taylor/Francis publication, a reputable academic journal publisher. Lamona (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep because Dr. McAlister clearly passes WP:NPROF C8. Additionally, her h-index score is a 5, verified both via Scopus and Web of Science. I'd rate this as good enough to meet C1 as well at this point in her career, given that the average social scientist h-index scores tend to be at 5 or lower across diverse fields, per this London School of Economics piece. (I'd place her field of expertise as straddling social sciences and humanities, but can't find averages for the latter.) The "senior lecturer" h-index score average from that LSE article (a roughly-equivalent rank to Dr. McAlister's "associate professor" in the U.S.) is 2.29, so she's more than doubled that average. --Pinchme123 (talk) 13:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * An h-index of 5 is not remotely enough to pass WP:Prof. Over 15 is expected from precedent. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC).
 * @Xxanthippe If the average social scientist h-index score is 5 or lower I don't think a 5 is enough for WP:NPROF either, but "over 15 is expected from precedent" doesn't make any sense, since h-index is so discipline dependent. Do you mean over 15 specifically in McAlister's discipline? Can you point to a specific precedent here? -- asilvering (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that I don't have the resources to debate, you but a glance through academic AfDs for he past decade shows that around 1000 citations and and h-index of 15 are expected for a marginal pass of WP:Prof; more in a fashionable field like this. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC).
 * @Xxanthippe H-index scores widely vary due to discipline. Hence why I provided a source to explain this and note why a 5 for an associate professor is much higher than average in her field, and average for all in all similar fields regardless of career stage. I stand by my vote that a 5 for a feminist scholar and rhetorician is plenty to meet WP:NPROF C1, especially one who also sails by C8 (further evidence of her impact). Not to mention, I have no idea what could be meant by hers being a "fashionable field." --Pinchme123 (talk) 08:49, 24 February 2022 (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.