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 Passes WP:Prof (WP:NACD) CTJF83 chat 20:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Harasim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Typical academic CV - written articles, edited and contributed to multi-author books. Doesn'tseem particularly notable. Scott Mac (Doc) 01:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- –SpacemanSpiff 01:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- –SpacemanSpiff 01:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the nomination which seems to be spot on. JBsupreme (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Clear Keep. GS cites are 1203, 430, 428, 398, 351, 195 etc. etc. h index = 23. Clear pass of WP:Prof #1. Poorly researched nominations waste the time of editors. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I'm afraid I don't understand a word of what you've said? What's a GS cite? Yes I researched this. Please indicate why she's notable?--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not part of an editor's duties to explain Wikipedia's WP:Prof policy to people who can read it for themselves. Advice often given to newcomers to a topic is to lurk around for a while to learn the conventions that prevail before jumping in as an editor. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Notability guidelines are not policies there are guidelines. They tell people "what usually tends to happen on AfD", they in no sense disctate what ought to happen. There is no need for anyone here to pay the blindest bit of attention to them. I don't. I use my own judgement.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She means the citation counts reported by a Google scholar search. These numbers are a (not very good, but easily measured) way of quantifying the impact a scholar's work has had on other scholars, and in this case they are well above what has usually been considered here to be at the passing level for WP:PROF #1. For instance, over 1200 other published academic works have cited her book Learning networks: A field guide to teaching and learning online in some way or another. No doubt many of these citations are trivial passing mentions but very likely not all of them are. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As Xxanthippe says, she clearly passes WP:PROF #1, and there seems to be plenty of news material in major international news publishers to use to source an article about here. Much of it involves quoting her as an expert (WP:PROF #7; see note 14) but others have more substantive material about her; this Australian Broadcast Network piece is an interview with her, and this Times Higher Education piece is about an incident that led to her resignation from TeleLearning, for instance. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn not indicate notability. I'm not sure you've indicated anything remarkable here. Most accademics in this field get called as witnesses, I imagine. None of these article give her more than a passing mention, in the same way they'd mention a policy inspector who investigated a case.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this some strange new meaning of the word "none" with which I'm unfamiliar? My comment above called out two specific articles for which the coverage of her is clearly more than a passing mention. As for "the article does not indicate notability": we are not supposed to say things like "She fulfils the Wikipedia standards for academic notability by virtue of her high citation count and h-index." within the text of an article; see WP:SELFREF. There is a paragraph discussing her research accomplishments; you are expected to deduce for yourself that these are the things she is considered notable for. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Her profile in the peer reviewed journal The Technology Source (ISSN 1532-0030) is not a passing mention. She has published three books at MIT Press and Praeger Publishers (notable and respected publishing houses). With your notability standards, we should delete 95% of this project :) _{This is not necessary.} --Vejvančický (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two of those works she edited, the other she co-authored - these are very typical things for an accademic to do. Even most junior lecturers do this type of thing. There is nothing remarkable here.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could probably make a good argument for deleting 95% of the least notable BLPs. *** Crotalus *** 14:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Widely published academic; David Eppstein's sources clearly demonstrate notability. Rebecca (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I see no evidence that this person is more notable than the average tenured college professor. Consequently, I see no reason to keep around an underutilized, underwatched BLP that is a vandalism and liability magnet. *** Crotalus *** 17:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is like arguing against articles on movie actors because the typical average movie actor acts in movies, or arguing against national presidents because the typical average president runs a country. Yes, typical college professors write books and other forms of research publication. However, it is completely false that most college professors have publication records demonstrating as high a level of impact (notability, in the form of other academics taking note of her work). That's why we have WP:PROF: to set standards that distinguish the notable professors from the average ones. By that standard, she passes. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability guidelines do not "set standards". They are supposed to try to reflect the standards that the community tends to go with at AFD. They are descriptive and no prescriptive. The fact that an article passes then (if this indeed dones) just says articles like this tend to pass - it is not really an arguement for keeping this. I personally prefer to make up my own mind and not read notability statements, others may do as they think best.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

so you think that any argument based on notability guidelines is invalid at an afd? Somehow, I was under the impression that arguments were supposed to be based on guidelines or policy. DGG ( talk ) 21:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Xxanthippe, clearly meets WP:PROF #1, with quite high citation rates. Per David Eppstein and Vejvančický, meets WP:GNG.John Z (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Xxanthippe, David Eppstein. I gently remind the nominator of WP:BEFORE, particularly item 9. Ray^Talk 07:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And can gently I remind you of WP:AGF? I did look at the sources, and still did not, and do not, consider this to be more than a typical accademic.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Scott, I can honestly say your faith was never at question here, only (initially) your diligence. I'll take you at your word that you still do not consider him notable, however, and withdraw any initial suggestion of sloppiness. Ray^Talk 15:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the basis of meeting WP:PROF, and, for those who prefer to use the GNG when possible, that also. Two books by MIT press is a major accomplishment, and would probably meet WP:AUTHOR as well. DGG ( talk ) 21:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per... well, everybody. Obviously notable academic. LotLE×talk 00:02, 4 February 2010 (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.