Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martha Black (art historian)


 * 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) 1.36.69.120 (talk) 02:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Martha Black (art historian)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

She has written two books based on collaborative museum exhibit design with First Nations communities whose culture is being interpreted. She is not as well known as she likely should be - part of a movement to be more inclusive in interpreting museum collections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by East Van Isdaitxv (talk • contribs) 19:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Does not appear to be notable. Couldn't find any google news hit for "Martha Black" + Heiltsuk JDDJS (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - It should be noted that the article's creator has protested this deletion on the article's talk page, with the note that they are still in the process of writing it. I have placed the {underconstruction}} tag on the article to give the article's creator a chance to finish their work, however long that takes. Also a search of Google Books does result in multiple hits for her. — Maile  (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Martha Black is a curator, researcher and art historian who has worked extensively with First Nations communities to create collaborative exhibits. Her work has included examine the R.W. Large Collection of Heiltsuk art and artifacts. This important collection contains an unusual degree of associated information - allowing us to learn about named artists from the Heiltsuk - something that was not commonly recorded during the height of the collecting of northwest coast art and artifacts. Black has been involved in several exhibits involving First Nations - with the Heiltsuk - the Kaxlaya Gvilas exhibit (Royal Ontario Museum, with travelling exhibit to UBC, Montreal (McGill) and a local museum in Ontario. She also worked with the Nuu-chah-nuulth on an exhibit of their work - though I am less familiar with this work.

Black has written several works regarding art history and the exhibits she worked on - and has set a good model for academics working with First Nations to collaborate in presenting their culture and art. — Preceding unsigned comment added by East Van Isdaitxv (talk • contribs) 00:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * She has published stuff, but it hasn't been noted much. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep -- the book holdings (220 + 270) might seem on the low side, but I could only find three books on Inuit art with higher holdings and two were textbooks, so she seems to have fulfilled WP:PROF of achieving distinction in her field. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, somewhat marginally, per User:Mscuthbert. Specialist in a very specific area. Johnbod (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. With a GS h-index of 4 she fails WP:Prof on cites. Book holdings are too low. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC).
 * I'm extremely dubious that the h-index works for art history, especially in such a minority area. Johnbod (talk) 02:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * h-index compares like with like. How do her citations compare with those of other art historians? Another art historian Ernst Gombrich has an h-index of over 40 (as far as I was prepared to count, so probably much greater, even though he was before the web got under way), so art historians are not necessarily badly done by in respect to citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC).
 * That doesn't follow at all, and is comparing one extreme with the other. It is not true at all that "h-index compares like with like" - it is calculated the same way for physicists and art historians. Given that Gombrich is possibly the most-widely cited 20th-century art historian (and is now dead after a very long career, writing mostly broad theoretical stuff, or stuff on the most core European Renaissance area), his score suggests that art historian's indices should be multiplied by about 5 to equate with physicists. Or more. But really it is a bad idea to use indices, especially for people who are also curators. Johnbod (talk) 04:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It is accepted by most people who contribute to academic AfDs here that different fields have different citation patterns for which allowance is made. Therefore one compares physicists with physicists and art historians with art historians, but not physicists with art historians. Also sub-fields have differences. There is plenty of discussion on the WP:Prof talk page and its archives. Best wishes. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC).
 * That is not at all what you said the first time. I've never heard of anyone trying to use an h-index for art historians, though I'm aware they are generally rejected as meaningful for historians in general. Do you have any RS links for their use for art history, and for the appropriate scale of values that would be required for this. Without that you should not be arguing from these here. Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've looked at the WP:PROF page, where I see these very sensible comments:

"I have literally never heard of citation numbers brought up in a hiring or promotion situation in the humanities, so by emphasizing them we are creating our own WP idea of notability and not considering notability factors in the field (mainly letters of evaluation; quality of journals published in; reviews of books, etc.). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * citation numbers are not used, but quality of citations is. If a person's work is referred to in every serious book on a subject, they are likely an authority. As some additional points: (1) the humanities citation data is extracted only for cites from the journals WoS covers. Until recently, there were very few humanities journals among them, and the current situation is only slightly better. The citations then will be biased towards those publishing in fields which do have significant coverage--if for example citations are from psychology or economics journals. (3)WoS coverage for non-English journals is extremely weak. In the humanities, many area-specific subjects are primarily published in journals of that language. The archeology of scandinavia is reported mainly in the scandinavian languages. The ancient history of Italy is primarily in Italian. WoS generally does not cover these. (4) WoS refused to give impact factors data in the humanities for many years, precisely because of the the problems noted in this discussion--the very wide spread of journals in which they appear, the appearance of many or most of the citations in books rather than journals, and the extremely long span during which citations appear. (I had   some personal discussions with Garfield on this, because when I was a beginning librarian, I did not understand.) (5) I do however disagree that every citation in the humanities is meaningful. I'm looking at McCormack's already classic Origins of the European Economy, and he makes a point of citing every published report in its field (To be sure its field is AD 300-900, where every bit of original source is precious & studied)But it is also true that most books in the humanities do indeed indicate which are  the most important papers and books they cite,   and applicable quotations to that effect can be found. Such can be found in the sciences too, for at least some of the cites, especially if review articles are examined. If this were done exhaustively, we could probably prove essentially all assistant professors in research universities as notable. DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)"

You seem rather out on a limb there. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, subject may meet WP:NAUTHOR? a number of reviews of her books found in: - American Indian Quarterly,  - University of Toronto Quarterly,  - BC Studies,  - Library Journal and Midwest Book Review, the book Native Art of the Northwest Coast (sorry no link as google books which lists the contents pages is wikiblocked) (has 2 reviews on pp 259, 718?) (she is also a contributor to this book). Coolabahapple (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Uncertain as this moment so I'm asking for analysis.  SwisterTwister   talk  04:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. meets WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR on the basis of the books. The article needs some adjust to emphasize them, for they are the true basis of notability.  DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. per WP:PROF --Moxy (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Article needs cleanup, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2016 (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.