Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susannah Ticciati


 * 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   delete. Big Dom  14:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Susannah Ticciati

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Originally PRODded but contested by page creator. Cleaned up article and double-checked sources but subject still fails each criterion of WP:ACADEMIC LordVetinari (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am afraid that this otherwise notable academic may fall foul of the verifiability issue in ACADEMIC "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." I'll post a rescue tag in the belief that I am mistaken. Bearian (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I tried rescuing. The edit history will show what I did but feel free to second-guess me if you disagree with something. I think I agree with your comment about verifiability but isn't mention on her college's own website sufficient for those citations where it's used? Correct me if I'm wrong. Nonetheless, I still think the subject does not meet WP:ACADEMIC, but perhaps she will in a few years time. BTW, note this edit summary. The source I refer to is KCL not Amazon. LordVetinari (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per the precise opposite of what Bearian says above. There is no problem at all with verifiability of the subject's academic career, unless anyone wants to claim that King's College London is an unreliable source, but such verification shows that she comes nowhere near meeting the requirements of WP:PROF, being a lecturer (i.e. "assistant professor" in American English), and with a total of 12 citations to her work listed by Google Scholar. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —Phil Bridger (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: She has created a work that has been the subject of multiple independent reviews, . Does this meet WP:AUTHOR criterion 3? The only reason it wouldn't is if we judge it not to be a "significant" work. But how do we judge significance, if not by the existence of multiple full-length reviews in independent reliable academic journals? Maybe a topic for Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) rather than here? Personally, I'm increasingly thinking that this specific criterion is in need of revision. --Qwfp (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Her work must be influential in her field. Google Book search shows many other religious books mentioning here and her work.  She is also referenced in a lot of Google scholar results.   WP:PROF item 1. I believe she meets.  Read the explanation of "Notes to specific criteria:" and that seems to fit here rather well.    D r e a m Focus  21:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The Google scholar search shows 59 results for her name, 32 if you add in the Bible book named "Job" and 25 if you filter out those that were written by her.  45 results if you eliminate "Job" and just search for "Susannah Ticciati" -"S Ticciati"(this is the name she publishes articles by, so I removed those from the search).  I doubt someone else has the same name as her, it certainly not a common one.  Google books has 222 results for her name, all of them religious, and most not written by her but by those referencing her work.   D r e a m Focus  21:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It seems to me that this falls under the general criterion whereby Dr Ticciati is more distinguished than the average lecturer. Theologynina 12 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theologynina (talk • contribs) who is the creator of the article . — Theologynina (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. Your account has made no other edits outside this article. It suggests this may just be a vanity page. It would help the skeptics (like myself) if you were to be able to describe exactly how/why Dr Ticciati is more distinguished than the average lecturer. Otherwise.. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC).


 * Delete. GS cites are 7, 3, 1, 1. Totally inadequate for WP:Prof, even for a low cited area as systematic theology. Far too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC).
 * Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: as articulated by Xxanthippe above, there does not seem to be enough to pass the professor test quite yet. nancy  09:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete nothing in gnews, you would expect someone being a well know author to get at least a passing mention. fails WP:PROF and WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per Xxanthippe and David Epstein. Does not meet any of the criteria of WP:PROF. --Crusio (talk) 04:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not meet WP:PROF, and although she is the author of a work that has received multiple independent reviews in reputable academic journals, (see my Comment above), this does not appear to be a significant work as required to meet WP:AUTHOR: the journals in question are the specialist theology journals (Journal of Theological Studies and Shofar: An International Journal of Jewish Studies), there are no hits in GNews Archive indicating no reviews in non-academic journals or newspapers, and the few hits in GBooks are for specialist theology books. Qwfp (talk) 08:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. To add to the above, there are 5 publications listed in WoS, but 0 overall citations. Her book ("Job and the disruption...") is held by ~125 institutions according to WorldCat. Note that number of GS hits is irrelevant (as opposed to the citations of the hits, as xxan points out). It would appear that this case must be argued on WP:PROF#1 (as others are obvious non-starters), but the statistics do not support a conclusion of notability. Rather, they are extremely typical of a junior-level academic. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC).
 * Keep. Susannah is amazing. End of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.92.184.159 (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC) — 159.92.184.159 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. Do you have any substantive argument? This seems to be just personal opinion. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2011 (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.