Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lydia Bean

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. Wikipedia doesn't much like political candidates, but it sure does like academics. Sandstein 20:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lydia Bean

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as an as yet non-winning candidate in an election. As always, this is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself -- a person has to hold a notable political office, not just run for one, to be notable as a politician, and the existence of an entirely normal and unremarkable amount of campaign coverage is not enough in and of itself to claim a GNG-based exemption from that. To be exempted from having to win the election first, she would have to either (a) demonstrate a credible reason why her candidacy is somehow much more special than everybody else's candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance, or (b) demonstrate preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten her into Wikipedia independently of her candidacy -- but the claim of preexisting notability here is referenced almost entirely to primary sources (her staff profiles on the self-published websites of her own employers, etc.) rather than notability-making reliable sources. Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if she wins, since her notability claim will have changed from "candidate" to "officeholder" -- but being a candidate does not secure inclusion in Wikipedia by itself, and nothing stated in the article earns her special treatment over and above other candidates. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. She obviously doesn't pass WP:NPOL and if kept her article should be edited to reflect that. But I found (and added to the article) plenty of reviews for her book, and she has another highly-cited co-authored book chapter ("Cultural mechanisms and killing fields", in The Many Colors of Crime), giving her a borderline case for WP:PROF despite her assistant-professor rank. An alternative possibility, possibly helpful in preventing this from being an election soapbox, would be to create an article on the book (which has enough reviews to appear independently notable) and redirect this article there pending the outcome of the election. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- A stub on the book now exists thanks to AleatoryPonderings. See The Politics of Evangelical Identity. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~See The Politics of Evangelical Identity,~~ with thanks to David Eppstein for essentially creating the article already. I have no opinion on Bean's notability at the moment. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks like we collided on that one. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF based on the citation record of her works (see Google Scholar profile) and the notable book she authored (multiple independent reviews). I've attempted to restructure the article to focus on these points as alluded to by Eppstein above. TJMSmith (talk) 03:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on WP:PROF MoonlightTulsi (talk) 05:37, 8 October 2020 (GMT)

Keep based on WP:PROF Juju (talk) 23:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for WP:PROF, not WP:NPOL. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:SIGCOV. I found coverage in the NY Times, Washington Post, Vox, GBooks, JStor, Stanford and a couple of specialist sites. scope_creep^Talk 10:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article was created to advance her candidacy. Her academic credentials are not enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as restructured by TJMSmith. With a well-reviewed book, a decent citation profile and some press attention to her research (e.g., [1]), there's a reasonable case for WP:PROF entirely independently of her run for the Texas state house. XOR'easter (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets PROF but more importantly GNG with coverage of the book. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:46, 11 October 2020 (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.