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) –Davey2010^Talk 02:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Hershatter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet any of the criteria at WP:ACADEMIC. Her presidency of AAS isn't notable, that is not a selective/prestigious association, and its presidency isn't either.  White Whirlwind  咨  04:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Actually, as a Distinguished Professor at the University of California[1], she does meet WP:ACADEMIC #5. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right. I missed that one, somehow. Apologies.  White Whirlwind  咨  16:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Acadnnotemics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not quite sure that because an association has a relatively open membership policy, that it would follow that it just would elect any old member to be its president and run the show. It is somewhat helpful if AFD nominations don't include statements that are rankly stupid. Le petit fromage (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ....  White Whirlwind  咨  16:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In addition to the dispositive arguments above, WP:NACADEMICS under Specific Criteria #2 mentions Guggenheim Fellowship.ch (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to White whirlwind for raising this issue, which involves wider questions. One is that the criteria for "impact" are vague. But here it might be useful to consider that a Google Scholar search for Gail Hershatter] shows that there are more citations for her first listed works are more than those for Frederic Wakeman, who was the leading China historian of his generation. This is only a side issue here, but we should raise this issue elsewhere. Cheers ch (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:PROF #C1 (highly cited publications for a historian), #C2 (Guggenheim fellow), #C5 (distinguished prof), and #C6 (president AAS). Any one of these by itself would be enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep , meeting several criteria, per David E. This nomination shows an inadequate understanding of WP:PROF. Sometimes it's difficult to evaluate citations, but the other factors are unmistakable and each of them would be itself be sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 06:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.