Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blakey Vermeule

:{{la|Blakey Vermeule}} ([{{fullurl:Blakey Vermeule|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blakey Vermeule}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Non-notable professor. Previous prod ignored. Joey the Mango (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

:*Comment. You should know by now that, if you want support for your proposal, you should come up with Google Scholar and Web of Knowledge (if it is available to you) numbers for this candidate. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC).

::*Oh, I checked, single digits. Joey the Mango (talk) 04:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

:::*Comment. My search of Google Scholar gives 8,8,1,1,1 cites. If that is all then notability per WP:Prof is not achieved. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC).

::::*google scholar is not a very good source. She's a pretty significant up and coming star in evolutionary psychological approaches to literature (which I have a fair amount of expertise in). If you want to use google, then note that googlebooks has 50 cites for "Blakey Vermeule" and another 26 (no doubt with some overlap) for "Vermeule Blakey." My vote is: keep. Nightspore (talk) 06:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)nightspore

::::::Thanks for your enlightening contribution. I agree about the severe limitations of Google Scholar. The hits on Google Books would not all be considered to be scholarly citations, but are indeed more than on the former. Web of Knowledge could be better. For the time being I shall leave the discussion to the experts in this field. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC).

• Weak Keep, actually per WP:IAR. Yes, she's only associate professor, but she has that position at Stanford, and she held a similar one at Yale. Has a PhD from Berkeley. Methinks if she worked for any other university she would be tenured professor by now, passing WP:PROF. --Pgallert (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• Isn't associate usually a tenured position, even at Stanford? I know it's not at some universities (JHU) but that's unusual. And being tenured is not the same as passing WP:PROF. I'm prepared to believe that someone tenured at Stanford is likely a star, but it would be good to see some evidence. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• Her parents were well-known scholars, and her brother has an article and passes WP:PROF, so I suspect somebody felt that Wikipedia would be complete if the whole family was represented. Imagine her article without the photo. Joey the Mango (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• This article has the same problem as other academic entries: it makes no claims to notability, it's simply a resume. Graduating from Berkeley and teaching at Stanford makes you more notable than other academics, but that alone doesn't put you over the bar of wikipedia notability. Hairhorn (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Confirm WoS findings by Joey the Mango. Searching on "Author=(Vermeule E* OR Vermeule B*)", she has 3 journal articles: Phil. Lit. (2006), Mod. Phil. (1998), and Mod. Lang. Quarterly (1998), none of which have ever been cited (by other journal articles). The search lists another 6 book reviews, also none of which have ever been cited. She doesn't seem to pass on journal scholarship. The article lists two books, but this is quite average for the associate professor level in the humanities. Is either one particularly significant? If not, then there's little real notability here. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC).
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. In the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Ramsay Shaw the following comment was made about the deletion nominator Joey the Mango by editor Agricola44: "Comment. Based on collective edits of the nominator in this case, what seems clear is the following: (1) With all due respect, nom is entirely ignorant of academic conventions and standards, especially as they apply to WP:PROF under whose criteria this article is being evaluated..... This discussion is ripe with WP:IDHT, suggesting WP:NPOV concerns. I'm afraid that further engaging the nom in any sort of debate will be a waste of time,...... but you are of course free to do so. ...... understand that at this point, you're no longer trying to convince the closing moderator. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)." I endorsed the above comments of Agricola44. They may be applicable also to other BLP academic/educator articles that editor Joey the Mango has proposed for deletion. Despite this, each AfD should be assessed on its own merits. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC).
• I'm a fast learner, and only prodded assistant and associate professors whose articles made no particular claims of notability, and for whom Google Scholar searches did not show high citation numbers. Joey the Mango (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• Vermeule is tenured at Stanford. She was tenured at Northwestern before that. This means that she was hired TO a tenured position at Stanford, which is ipso facto pretty good evidence that she is notable. I who am in the field and in the profession can guarantee that she is one of the best known academics in her generation. WoS is better than google scholar but not very good on humanities -- and tends to be way out of date. I don't know why this is, but I can tell you as well that we in the humanities tend not to use it very much at all anymore -- except for science articles when we have occasion to cite them. The absorption of the far better Humanities Citation Index into WoS was a disaster. At any rate, the publication of her second book is eagerly, which the entry mentions but which is still forthcoming, is eagerly awaited. She's not an obscure academic who's published two books. She's a well-known academic who's presented work at conferences and symposia and lectures, work so far cited mainly through acknowledgements (hence the large number of hits in googlebooks), but which is about to come out as a book. I repeat that this book is eagerly awaited by a lot of people. Joey the Mango doesn't seem to know any of this background, but just goes around assimilating doubly tenured associate professors to assistant professors (I don't want to sound elitist, but I guess this is inevitable once you get into a micturation contest about notablity) and makes what seem to be sexist insinuations about photographs, and imagines himself a fast learner. Read a little in the field, figure out who the players are, and then decide. The field is highly notable. She's a big player, and probably among the half dozen best known academics of her generation. I who would certainly pass Joey the Mango's mechanical criteria, applied it seems by a person with no familiarity with the academic world except a vague and somewhat dubious grasp of titles, and I'm certainly less notable than she.Nightspore (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)nightspore

::As I recall, HCI was incorporated intact into WoK. Not that I generally used HCI after the first few tries, for there were never enough references worth the botherDGG (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

:*Comment. Agreed. Each case should be reviewed strictly on its own merits. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC).

• Keep Sufficient distinguished academic record to show an influence on the subject and meet WP:PROF. Being an associate professor a stanford probably makes a person in the top 10% of the professors in a subject. Universities differ. Two books is the requirement for tenure in the humanities in the best universities--most others now accept a book and 3 articles. That she has done this is further evidence of very high quality. I don't intend to second-guess Stanford on the basis of my own analysis. WoS (and Scopus) are worthless in the humanities, because they cite only work published by journals, and most work in the subject is not in journals, but in books, which they do not analyze. I generally don't run these in this subject, as long experience has shown me that the results are meaningless. GScholar is wildly incomplete and inconsistent also, because a great many publishers do not let it scan their current books. There is no adequate database for citation analysis in the humanities. DGG (talk) 01:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
• Hogwash, her second book hasn't even been released yet. Joey the Mango (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

:*This is the first I've heard of a books-for-tenure rule. How are you supposed to write two books in 5 years as an academic? That's a typical tenure clock, unless you do multiple visiting assistant prof gigs. Hairhorn (talk) 02:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

:::yes, relatively few people are able to write 2 books in five years --and it's not just books, but books by major academic publishers. That;'s why anyone who meets it is notable in the humanities. The sciences work differently, of course. For data ,see any issue of Chronicle of Higher Education., or better, look at some CVs from the best places and compare them with the CVs at the 2nd rate places. DGG (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Has at least one book, The party of humanity, which is in a relatively narrow area, currently in more than 300 major libraries worldwide according to [http://www.worldcat.org WorldCat]. COI may exist here, but is not a reason for deletion.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

:*I don't see it. Where's the "significant impact"? Hairhorn (talk) 03:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree with reservations of DGG about shortcomings of bibliometric sources for this subject but I do not accept that being an Associate Professor of a university, no matter how distingished, confers notability automatically. One proponent "can guarantee that she is one of the best known academics in her generation". Unfortunately the evidence is not produced. Subject may become notable in time but has not been shown to have done so yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC).
• Keep. Being promoted to a tenured position at Stanford, I agree, would not be enough evidence of notability. Being recruited by Stanford for a tenured position is a whole 'nother kettle of fish, as anyone in the field could tell you, and comes pretty close to "automatically conferring notability," since Stanford noted her and recruited her. And here's where the otherwise empty googlebook stats are useful: the number of acknowledgements that she's received by the authors of the leading works in literary Darwinism shows the "significant impact." These aren't pro forma: everyone in the field sees her as central to it. So anyone coming into the field might well be curious about her, and want to go to Wikipedia to find out more. Look, say you were highly influential in your field through the brilliance and pertinacity of your interactions with the other leaders of that field, every single one of whom acknowledged you in their own writing. Say you were good enough to be recruited by Stanford and other schools in the know on the basis of one book for a tenured job. Say the work that had made you so conspicuous and powerful a presence at conforences or colloquia were now about to be released in a second book. Wouldn't a Wikipedia entry be appropriate? But there's no other evidence that can be adduced here than the evidence already adduced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightspore (talk • contribs) 06:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

::*If she's important, it's not reflected in the article; in its current state it could easily be an A7 speedy delete for claiming no significance at all. Hairhorn (talk) 12:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

:::the assertion that one has published a single book, of any sort, other than self published, is generally considered enough to defeat A7 speedy. DGG (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree -- it's really more a stub. But that's ok: flag it as a stub. That would be the point. Nightspore (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)nightspore
• Delete Clearly not notable by any objective standard that we have here at Wikipedia. All of the silliness about being hired to a tenured position at Stanford etc. is just smokescreen. She's not notable by the general standards nor by any loophole in WP:PROF so now editors are just making up criteria. Drawn Some (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
• From WP:PROF: "Note that as this 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. It is important to note that it is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of numbers of publications or their quality: the criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field. Also, this proposal sets the bar fairly low, which is natural: to a degree, academics live in the public arena, trying to influence others with their ideas. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable." I repeat that there's no question that she meets reasonable criteria: she has a significant impact on a significant field. Those of us in the field, like yours truly, know this. The objective demonstration is the acknowledgement to her that appears in something like 90% of the leading books in the field. How does that not document significance? I'd say at best this is a draw, and that given that fact you should err on the side of the recommendation of the person posting here, yours truly, who is most conversant with this field. Nightspore (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)nightspore

::actually, that's not what we do here. All editors are equal. If you;'re an expert, your arguments will show it without your having to announce your expertise or make personal comparisons. When there are equally supported views on an AfD, we close non-consensus. DGG (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

:::I know that, and so wasn't trying to assert authority, except w/r/t whether WoS was a good source, which it isn't (as you yourself have pointed out). What I can shed light on is why the acknowledgements in so many leading books matter. Who gets to say they're leading books? I guess I could go listing their authors and their entries, but this gets to be a real time-waster. Ok, maybe I will when I get an hour or two.Nightspore (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)nightspore

• Ok, an example or two of notability: she was one of the distinguished visitors at the leading institution of Darwinian approaches to the arts, the Center for Cultural Inquiry at the University of Aukland. In his landmark book On the Origin of Narrative Brian Boyd puts her in the short list of people he owes particular thanks to. The vastly unhelpful WoS doesn't have her 2008 piece in the central issue of Style (one of the leading journals in literary studies) in the symposium they published on Literary Darwinism, [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2342/is_2-3_42/ai_n31591119/ here]; this is right now the single most important published debate on the subject. Denis Dutton acknowledges her in his new and widely cited book, The Art Instinct. She's cited multiple times in Lisa Zunshine's leading critical book Why We Read Fiction. If necessary I'll go on; the point is she's central to a burgeoning and cutting edge field, and widely acknowledged to be central.Nightspore (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)nightspore
• Does any reliable source say she is central? Joey the Mango (talk) 03:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Well, now you're raising the bar pretty high. I think if you listed the profs reliable sources said were central, you'd have a fairly small number. That's not how notability is established, unless you're editing a one-volume encyclopedia, which she clearly wouldn't make. You began, apparently, thinking of her as an untenured associate professor. You said you were prodding associates and assistants. But almost no associates and assistants have the visibility she does -- demonstrated, I repeat, in the acknowledgements and other citations by notables like the blues linked in my last; and demonstrated by appearing in the central or textbook debates that are taught in the field; and demonstrated by appointments at such places as the CCI. So sure, she's not notable like Northrop Frye; but she is notable like say Stephen Burt (Associate without tenure at Harvard) or Mary Baine Campbell; like Burt she's a rising star and therefore likely to be the object of sufficient interest to make an entry on her something that readers will wish to consult and editors to improve.Nightspore (talk) 04:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)nightspore
• I never said she was untenured. It is my impression that a lot of academics get acknowledgments, and notability is not inherited. Many famous profs do have reliable sources that say they are "famous", "well-known", "respected" and etc. Being cited multiple times in one book is not interesting to me, and isn't really in the spirit of WP:PROF. Also, I find it difficult to agree or disagree with your claims of "landmark", "visibility", "leading", "burgeoning" and "cutting edge", since there are no sources on this debate (which nobody but the academic participants care about--and I mean no disrespect; how could there be, it's so rarified) on Wikipedia, but I will say this; "rising star" could be interpreted to mean "not notable yet." Certainly you would agree that she has not "broken out" of the world of academia into the broader community yet, right? Joey the Mango (talk) 04:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

:::I've got to agree about tributes of this sort. I consider them puffery, except if in a signed published review. And I agree that "Rising star", though sometimes well meant, is reasonably to be interpreted as "not yet risen". I take a very cynical view of our ability to judge anything except publications, publisher reputation, published reviews, citations, and quality of the university. One book is admittedly borderline. The question is how much to weigh the quality of the university. My feeling is that at the level of Stanford, the judgment that they make in awarding tenure is to be respected. They can evaluate one thing which we cannot, and which does make all the difference: the quality of the work. DGG (talk) 00:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Well, just to say the field isn't rarified: it's been recently covered in: The New York Times and The New York Times magazine, the Boston Globe, the Nation, LiveScience, and Arts and Letters Daily. It's the going thing right now in literary theory. WP:PROF I repeat says that the bar is set low, because that's the nature of academic influence. She's cited multiple times in multiple books: I just went to the ones that happen to be in my room, so that I could cite accurately. So I acknowledge she's not broken out into the broader world, but she's highly influential in the field, which qua field certainly has broken out, and that does seem in the spirit of WP:PROF. Nightspore (talk) 05:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• We are talking about Darwinian literary studies, right? Joey the Mango (talk) 05:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Yeah we are. I should work on that article. It's pretty lame.Nightspore (talk) 23:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. My view is that it is not necessary for a subject's reputation to have broken out into "the broader world", however that is defined. Certainly not if defined by the audience of popular tabloid media like the National Enquirer or 60 Minutes. Notability can be established within a significant academic subfield like nuclear physics, archaeology, literary studies and so forth. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC).

: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.