Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martha Finnemore


 * 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. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  03:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Martha Finnemore

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete unreferenced one-line BLP with a claim of notability (avoiding WP:CSD, but without any proof of notability - WP:GNG. WP:BIO - and devoid of any real basic biographical material. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Although the page does assert notability (She is a fulltime professor), the article fails to share any encyclopedic information a reader looking her up wouldn't already know. Substub. - Mgm|(talk) 09:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The article now clearly explains what she's known for and how she is a respected scholar among her peers. Notability guidelines for academics are now obviously met. - Mgm|(talk) 09:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep. Sorry for the initial stubiness of the article, this seems to have fallen off my watchlist.  In any case, she is one the leading scholars of the discipline and any undergrad who's taken an IR theory class has probably read at least one of her books.  Absolutely, irreproachably notable. Cool3 (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If she's so notable, when and where was she born? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * By this logic, many Catholic saints, including Saint Peter are not notable. --C S (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Straw man. For modern biographies - which includes all living people - there is no reason why we cannot find the birthplace and date of someone notable - that we cannot seems to negate the notability. See Red flags of non-notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't make up your argument that notable implies we have to know when and where she was born. This is obviously wrong, which was the point of my comment.  Now you are arguing that your argument was only for biographies of living people.  This is still a bad argument however, e.g. see Orlando_Hernández.  By the way, a straightforward reading of your essay does not at all give any red flags for this person, but as the originator of the essay, I'll take your word for it.  However, I'm curious why you think an essay you wrote a couple months ago somehow trumps well-known notability guidelines.  --C S (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to go on an AFD spree sometime, you should probably check out Category:Year_of_birth_missing_(living_people) and Category:Place_of_birth_missing_(living people). For example, with only a few tries, I found Bill_Anschell.  No sources giving his birthdate, and his "origin" despite being listed as Seattle, is in fact not known to be his birthplace.  A big red flag, eh?--C S (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not usable as a reliable source, but the answer is listed here as August 6, 1959, in Champaign, IL. But the ability to find this information has little or nothing to do with her suitability as the subject of an encyclopedia article: we don't make articles for people about whom the only information known is genealogical, so by the same token we shouldn't demand genealogical information as a condition of inclusion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Google scholar search gives two publications with around 1000 citations each, and plenty more over 100; this looks like a clear pass of WP:PROF #1 to me. The TRIP survey makes a clear case for her impact, and there are plenty of overview articles on constructivism in international relations which could likely be used to source a more detailed description of her role in that subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * PS I just added links to ten published reviews of her books. There should be plenty more material there for expansion of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems obvious.  Highly respected among scholars in ILR.  Textbooks are basic reading in introductory courses.  --C S (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Snowball Keep, according to David Eppstein's very conclusive findings. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2009 (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.