Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martha L. MacDonald


 * 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Martha L. MacDonald

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article fails WP:ACADEMIC Magnolia677 (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:ACADEMIC is one notability guideline and doesn't overrule others, nor the GNG. Even so, as past president of the International Association for Feminist Economics, the top level academic society in the field of feminist economics, MacDonald could be argued to pass academic #6. Although #8 specifies editor or chief editor only, the fact that MacDonald is a long-standing associate editor of Feminist Economics (which, mind you, is distinctly different than just being on the editorial board) combined with her other body of work makes a pretty good case that she passes academic criterion #1 as well.  I'd dig up sources to demonstrate that but don't feel the need to given that there's no question that MacDonald passes WP:CREATIVE #3 - here's five reviews in reputable publications of her books that easily exceed the requirement of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."  Plenty more exist, I just both don't want to dig around to make a full list, don't want to spam the page with it, and figure this should be plenty to show she passes creative #3 -, , , , .  If I dug around more I'd imagine she'd meet other notability guidelines too, and certainly the GNG.


 * I know it's to some degree unavoidable, but I do find it unfortunate that prominent women in their fields tend to get AfDed a lot more often than prominent men do, especially if their fields are primarily contributed to by women in the first place. Don't take me the wrong way, I realize it's a systemic thing without malicious intent behind it, I just find it kind of unfortunate.  If you wanted to AfD a bunch of non-notable academics it would be easy to do... but the articles of non-notable men often just get ignored, while the articles of fairly prominent women get sent to AfD. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I rarely nominate articles for deletion, but encountered two female academic articles today which appeared to not meet notability. It was totally random.  Your comment, "that prominent women in their fields tend to get AfDed a lot more often than prominent men do", if placed into any regular Wiki article, would be deleted quickly, and the edit summary would state "removing unsourced content".  To throw out a comment like that, without also including some basis in fact, undermines the inclusive spirit of Wikipedia.  Magnolia677 (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Most AfD comments, if placed in to any regular wiki article, would be removed. Often with the editsum "removing unsourced content." Including, er, yours - though I hesitate to point that out since I don't see significant point in creating a stack of back and forth comments about it that ends up being turtles all the way down.  I have no doubt that your nominations were made without malice.  As far as I know no one has studied gender differences in articles sent to AfD, but my statement is likely correct given what's been found in pretty much every area that has been studied - Joseph Reagle has at least one paper out documenting systemic gender differences in biographies, and several other researchers have demonstrated systemic gender differences in other areas of cover (including, IIRC, in the likelihood of information being challenged.) There's nothing incongruent about the idea of your noms being made with no malice and Wikipedia still having a systemic issue. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Citation record on GS is totally inadequate for WP:Prof. There only 8 cites; many hundreds, perhaps 1000 are expected. The special pleading is distasteful. Wikipedia does not operate quotas.Xxanthippe (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC).
 * Comment A search for "Martha MacDonald" reveals more than 800 cites (excluding those referring to other persons of the same name) and an h-index of 16. So the article should probably be moved to Martha MacDonald (economist). --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 07:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You are correct. I get a GS h-index of 16, which is on the borderline for WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC).
 * Xxanth, it's a bit disappointing to have you dismiss my post as a distasteful special pleading given that in said post I laid out in fairly explicit detail how the subject of the AfD meets at least one notability criterion without an iota of doubt. WP:ACADEMIC is the most frequently applied notability guideline to academics, but it's not the only one, and it doesn't take precedence over other guidelines, as you know. It goes as far as to explicitly mention that fact, including linking the specific guideline I used to justify notability here. Although I'm glad you changed your vote, I'm also a bit perplexed as to why you chose to change your vote based on bibliometric criteria well documented to not apply anywhere near equally across all fields, especially to non-hard science fields. Although Thomson's ESI doesn't cover feminist economics, extrapolating from what it does cover, I would expect someone influential enough in the field of feminist economics to meet A#1 to have perhaps 5% or 7.5% as many citations as an equivalently influential figure in physics. A#1 is a field specific criterion; you can't try to apply a universal bibliometric to determine whether or not it has been satisfied. Suggesting that a keep vote here for an established academic who without any possible argument against it meets WP:AUTH and who was also the past president of the major association in her field amounts to trying to get Wikipedia to operate on a quota system is distasteful bordering on offensive. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per Kevin Gorman's first paragraph. -- Green  C  01:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a list of past presidents of IAFFE, removing Martha MacDonald from it would mean that she is the only past president not to have a blp. It would also cause a gap in the succession boxes between Edith Kuiper and Cecilia Conrad. It may also prove beneficial to the students on the Poverty, Justice and Human Capabilities (PJCH) course at Rice University, which is one of Wikipedia's education programmes. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 07:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. There is nothing inherently wrong in a black ink entry in a succession box. --Bejnar (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. WP:PROF is a guideline, not a basic rule. Bearian (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per arguments above. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable academic. It would be useful to find out whether Martha L MacDonald or Martha MacDonald is more commonly used. Jonpatterns (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - for reasons mentioned above, plus Inclusionism and ending the gender gap. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:05, 13 July 2014 (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.