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 per WP:SNOW. The article has undergone significant improvement since the nomination and, although it still needs cleanup, the level of sourcing is now very obviously adequate to support an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Czaplicka (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)

fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. not much in gnews or gscholar. [1] and [2]. LibStar (talk) 07:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Meets and exceeds all relevant policies and guidelines. Suggest nominator do more research on the subject, paying special attention to the different versions of her name. It might also help if the nominator would read the article paying attention to the bibliography and external links. I can't imagine a single valid rationale for deletion. Viriditas (talk) 07:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please explain what guidelines it meets, she does not pass the significant coverage test as per WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 07:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

search under alternate names do not reveal significant coverage [3], [4]. [5]. LibStar (talk) 07:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my original comment. Your searches aren't returning correct results because she is not commonly cited using those strings. Czaplicka is a major figure in the study of Siberian shamanism, and I suggest you take a moment to read the article you are nominating, paying attention to the bibliography and the external links. Please don't respond with another malformed search string. Please actually do the research. Viriditas (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Viriditas. Could I perhaps suggest that rather than criticising others for using the wrong search strings, it might be more constructive if you told us what you think the correct ones are? Or better, show us some search results yourself? -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collins discusses the problem with her name.(1999; 2004) As the author of multiple scholarly publications, including books and journal articles, and as a recognized researcher in her respective field acknowledged by secondary and tertiary sources, the subject passes every criteria of the significant coverage test per WP:GNG. LibStar is mistaken. Viriditas (talk) 13:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I expect that is true but could we have the links so we can check for ourselves? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Have you checked the current article? I believe I have already pointed editors to it. Viriditas (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I can see. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have mentioned "bibliography and external links" several times now. Secondary and tertiary sources all describe her work as important and valuable. The body of the article also asserts her notability as the author of several popular books, the only female lecturer at Oxford, the second person to gain a doctorate in anthropology, the first woman allowed into the Royal Geographic Society, winner of the Murchison Award, etc. Further research shows an archive of her work at a University, a collection of artifacts she donated to a museum, and a scholarship in her name. The number of secondary sources quoting her work is also impressive. I can go on. Viriditas (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The body of the article makes many unsourced claims to notability, but doesn't back them up with inline citations (a bibliography is present, but bibliographies have been so badly misused in other articles as to have little credibility). None of the external links are particularly informative, either. In particular, they do not address the legitimate questions that LibStar, "Boing! said Zebedee", and Xxanthippe have raised. Now, there is no doubt in my mind that Czaplicka is in fact notable (her 1914 book was reprinted in 1969 and 2007, for example, so that these numerous citations do not pick up all mentions, and WorldCat treats it as multiple different entities). However, the article as written does a poor job of demonstrating her importance. -- Radagast3 (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And when I do check out some of the books in the bibliography, I see them contradicting the article. Disappointing. -- Radagast3 (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is a substantial mention of this person in A history of Oxford anthropology, the reference is listed in the article together with many other sources. A notable cultural anthropologist. To be honest, I don't understand the nomination. LibStar, be more careful, please. --Vejvančický (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Substantial material in multiple reliable sources, including a whole chapter in Kubica (2007). Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentKeep: it is up to the authors of the article to show notability, not for the reader to "do research." This article has a bibliography, but only one inline citation, which conveys little useful information (of course a university expresses regret when a staff member dies). Her book Aboriginal Siberia does seem to be well-cited, and this may be enough to guarantee notability, but the article needs serious work. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Feel free to use the talk page to address the most glaring problems, although obviously, adding inline citations is at the top of the list. Keep in mind, when this article was created, inline citations were rarely used. Viriditas (talk) 02:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken it on myself to remove some glaring errors, do some cleanup, and add a handful of inline citations. -- Radagast3 (talk) 05:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Subject is in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. This suffices. Odd that the nominator missed this. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep Obviously an expert in her subject. Anyway, the ODNB listing is definitive, though it would be totally clear even without it. I'm too much involved in this sort of article to do a snow keep close,. but there is an obvious case for it. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 6 March 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.