Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martha West


 * 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. Majority consensus leaning towards a Keep (non-admin closure) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Martha West

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable academic fails WP:GNG. KidAd (🗣️🗣🗣) 20:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Her work has had an important impact on society, particularly establishing UCD's Family Protection and Legal Assistance Clinic, which continues today to provide legal services to the community and educational opportunities for law students. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete first of all there's zero evidence her work has had a an important impact on "society" (whatever that means in this context) and even if it has she still has to pass the notability guidelines everyone else does. Second, the she fails WP:GNG due to the lack of secondary in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. What little sourcing there is that's not primary is only brief passing mentions of her. Finally she hasn't been elected to a high up academic position or met anything else that would allow her to meet the notability criteria for WP:WNPROF. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , "impact on society" was my regrettable shorthand for WP:NPROF criteria #1, #4, and #7. Multiple RS cited in the article describe West's research and her reports, conducted beginning in the 1990s, about hiring of women faculty. Being named general counsel of AAUP probably also matches #6, "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." HouseOfChange (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be false to say the references are describing West's research or reports. It looks most of them have nothing to do with either. For instance one is about a local Women’s History Month luncheon where she was a guest speaker and the most cited source is a short bio from either the college she graduated from or works at. Neither of those are about her "research and reports." Also, it's questionable that her being named general counsel of the AAUP passes WP:NPROF because it's more similar to a teachers union or school organization then a high up "academic" position or even "academic society." For instance the AAUP"s goal is to "advance academic freedom and shared governance, to define fundamental professional values and standards for higher education, and to ensure higher education's contribution to the common good." Which is extremely general. Whereas, an academic society "is an organization that exists to promote an academic discipline, profession, or a group of related disciplines such as the arts and science." Since the AAUP isn't promoting any of those things, I don't consider it an academic society. Therefore, I don't think her being named general counsel to it passes WP:NPROF. That's just my interpretation though. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Her research and reports are major topic of these RS cited in the article: UCSD Guardian, Black Issues in Higher Education,

East Bay Times, and The San Francisco Chronicle. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment Local newspaper coverage of research she did at a university in the area where the newspapers are printed doesn't show her research has a wide impact in her field of study. Local newspapers cover local things. That's how they work. My local newspaper covers research done by my local community colleges archaeological department all the time. That doesn't mean my community colleges archaeological department should have an article in Wikipedia or that their research has had any kind of impact anywhere outside of with local history buff. Nothing against them or anything. The SF/Bay Area isn't "society" either. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment UCSD Guardian is published in the San Diego area, not the Bay area. Diverse: Issues In Higher Education (formerly Black Issues in Higher Education] is published in Fairfax, VA. See also this NYT article I just discovered, discussing her work: "But Martha West, the lead author of the new report, who has worked on the issue for years, said that as the number of women earning Ph.D.'s increased, the rate of female faculty hiring should be growing much faster than currently." Coverage of West's work is different from the kind of local coverage you describe. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but two of the sources you cited were local, which was half of them, and those where the ones I was talking about. I wasn't talking about the other ones, obviously. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. First of all, the nom made no case whatsoever for deletion. When presented with an article that is adequately cited on its face, the simple assertion "not notable," without any supporting analysis, should result in the AFD being speedy closed. Second, the single delete !voter makes no real effort to assess the subject's notability (no effort, for example, to assess the subject's citation record) and quite incorrectly argues that the bulk of the existing sourcing is primary, when it plainly isn't. In any event, the article shows enough reliable sourcing to make a prima facie case for notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo).  Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.  Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: Based on WP:NACADEMIC for 364 citations counts for 1 book and WP:NACADEMIC awards (unsure about strength of awards). Earthianyogi (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Although the book is co-authored with John W. Curtis so it is more like ~180 number. The rationale for my division: I am an academic myself and if I co-author something, I get only half the credit I'd get for solo paper within my university internal point system. It is logical do divide citation numbers by the numbers of co-autors. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Although I agree with the idea, it is not yet part of the WP:NACADEMIC guidelines. Her books are widely available in libraries around the world and combined with the awards, the subject appears notable. Earthianyogi (talk) 10:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep based on citations, and coverage in UCSD Guardian and Black Issues in Higher Education. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:18, 29 July 2020 (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.