Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M. Gail Hamner


 * 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. And possibly merge American Pragmatism: A Religious Genealogy to this article.  Sandstein  09:36, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

M. Gail Hamner

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A minor academic with little evidence of passing the requirements at WP:NACADEMIC. A Google Scholar search finds that her publications have been cited very few times by other scholars, while I can find no significant reviews of her books beyond minor listings of their existence. WP:NACADEMIC uses the term "impact" several times to demonstrate the notability of an academic, and there is little evidence of that here. Note that she made the news briefly in 2016 regarding the use of an Israeli film in a conference she organized, but that was also a minor story in just a few outlets. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 20:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 20:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect/Merge to American Pragmatism: A Religious Genealogy or keep. I think this might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. The first book, American Pragmatism has received multiple academic reviews. The second book, Imaging Religion in Film: The Politics of Nostalgia has one review as far as I can tell. Thsmi002 (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I think four published reviews for two books is enough (barely) for WP:AUTHOR, and enough to save this from a WP:BIO1E redirect. On the other hand, I would not be opposed to a redirect in the other direction, from the book to the author. Or do we really want a separate article on every academic book with more than one published academic review? I'd think that we'd want sources that demonstrate sustained interest over multiple years rather than the sort of routine interest every book gets at publication time, before having an article on the book. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree with you (and amended my vote). I started the article on the book so there was an option (if needed) for redirection rather than deletion. Thsmi002 (talk) 03:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Her books have gotten respectful and positive reviews and had some impact.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * concur with Thsmi002 and David Eppstein  that merging American Pragmatism: A Religious Genealogy to this page, where it would make a useful section, is the right move.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:54, 20 December 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.