Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice Goffman

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.

Alice Goffman

Alice Goffman (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)

An assistant professor(!) born in 1982 whose main claim to "fame" (within a very small group) is a "Dissertation Award." The standard requirement per Wikipedia:Notability (academics) is "a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)", or comparable academic standing. Assistant professors are at the very bottom of the academic hierarchy, in the opposite end compared to the standard requirement per WP:ACADEMIC. This is someone who just started their academic career. If she was suitable for inclusion, she would at the very least be a full professor, not an assistant professor. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• A misunderstanding of policy by
  WP:ACADEMIC provides guidelines to help evaluate notability, but it entirely routine for assistant and adjunct professors to be notable enough to have pages, if the sourcing is there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep Article seems well sourced, while the subject is an assistant professor, she is also a published author and is notable. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A glance at the article's sourcing, which includes a lengthy profile of Goffman in last week's
  WP:GNG. She is notable because she wrote a book that has started a major war within academia; a major intellectual firefight with battlelines drawn: journalists, lawyers, and Law Schools on one side, social scientists and political activists on the other; and a series of minor skirmishes on her Wikipedia page - of which this is the latest - although not the first effort to delete or discredit the page on the part of Nom [1]. The fuss is over what standards should determine what constitutes evidence, over how transparent and verifiable sources should be, and even over the line between fiction and nonfiction, advocacy and scholarship, and the nature of truth. Battles now being fought via anonymous emails, on academic listserves, in print, by online publication and, perhaps inevitably, on Wikipedia. I want to thank Nom for his courtesy in notifying me, since I did not start the article, although I have been active in editing it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Huh - went back to see who did start it, turns out that it was me. It was way back last summer, and I mis-remembered.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not notify you personally, I used TW which automatically notifies you as the article creator. Good to know that you find the sourcing of an article you've written convincing. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Mr Nowak, you may not have seen my entry on the Talk page: "It has been suggested that Goffman is not notable as she is an assistant professor and although she has received some prestigious awards and fellowships, it is perhaps debatable whether she satisfies the criteria listed in WP:NACADEMICS. However, she clearly meets WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." She clearly meets this guideline as she and her book have been the subject of multiple articles in reliable sources such as the NYTimes and the Chronicle of Higher Education, and WP:NACADEMICS "is a guideline and not a rule, exceptions may well exist. Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for their academic work." " Thus
  WP:NACADEMICS NPalgan (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Nishidani (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: even assistant professors can be notable as authors. This one appears to be. Jonathunder (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The sources cited in this article substantiate notability. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly passes GNG. Most of the sources are RS. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Extremely well known, both in and out of academia. 32.218.39.58 (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2016 (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.