Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruth Ben-Ghiat

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Ruth Ben-Ghiat}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Ruth Ben-Ghiat}})

No named chair or anything for WP:NPROF. The current "named" position is a temporary visting role not a faculty role as expected for NPROF. None of the sources here are independent, reliable, and providing significant coverage of her. The RS use her opinion on Trump but that does not make her notable. Czarking0 (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:I'll also note that the top editor to the page has been blocked for sockpuppeting. User:JmsDoug Czarking0 (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and California. Shellwood (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, History, Politics, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. The nomination points out only that she does not meet one very specific WP:PROF criterion, #C5. But notability need not achieved through meeting that criterion when others are available. In this case, she has many published reviews of her books, easily passing both WP:AUTHOR and (because they are in-depth independent reliable sources about her work) WP:GNG. As for "top editor" JmsDoug: that editor's contributions were limited to the infobox and the paragraph about the visiting position at the University of Hawaii. The article creation itself was long ago by someone else. So the suggestion that this is a foundationally tainted article turns out to be, if not disingenous, then at least spectacularly false. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
• :This does not only talk about WP:NPROF]. I specifically stated why she does not meet [[WP:GNG. I just reread WP:AUTHOR and I am not seeing how she passes that either. {{xt|if not disingenous, then at least spectacularly false}} Dude seriously? I googled for additional sources about her and I do not see any that are sig cov, independent, reliable. Czarking0 (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::None so blind as will not see.
• ::But to lead you more directly to what you have not seen: WP:AUTHOR 4(c) "The person's work (or works) has ... won significant critical attention". WP:GNG: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
• ::The many published reviews constitute both "significant critical attention" and "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". They are indeed about the subject in the sense that they are entirely about the subject's work, the thing she is notable for, just as we would expect significant coverage of an athlete to be about their athletic accomplishments or significant coverage of a musician to be about their musical performances. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: There are enough reviews about her works that meets NAUTHOR. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 20:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - and I'd say a speedy one at that. Several books with multiple reviews in reliable independent sources means that she passes WP:AUTHOR, and her citation record [https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=IRW7XZwAAAAJ] looks strong as well (five papers with over a hundred citations, the top one with over 800 citations and an h-index of 21), almost certainly meeting WP:PROF#1. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Ok this one probably changes my mind. Czarking0 (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROF, WP:HEY, and WP:BEFORE. I deprodded the proposed nomination, because doing so would have been controversial at a time when we don't need any more, and because of clear notability. She is well-known as The expert on Fascism in the United States today: a simple Google search will reveal that. She earned tenure as a full professor at one of the world's top universities, New York University, where it's very difficult to get tenure. {{U|David Eppstein}} has patiently added evidence of author notability to the article. When nominating a scholar, you need also to look at Google Scholar. Bearian (talk) 09:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. The subject seems to be publicly notable enough, based on a basic Google search and independent news coverage [https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ruth-ben-ghiat-donald-trump-playbook_n_67ce9b3ee4b0d416d844bd70 like this]. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per NAUTHOR. Thanks for adding the references to reviews, {{u|David Eppstein}}. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Article only canvasses her early life and education. While her bio doesn't disclose notability, her publications might. Suggest note on talk page and tag(s) to allow the article to be revised with an aim to discussing her career and the impact of her work. ash (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:Having spoken with experts in Authoritarianism, I would like to add {{RBLPV}} CounterDolus (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::Almost forgot... {{RBLPV}} CounterDolus (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Welcome to Wikipedia @CounterDolus! I'm sure that the points you make will be welcome in the article if they are backed up by reliable, independent, published sources. I wouldn't say that they constitute grounds for deletion though. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Please note also {{u|CounterDolus}} that Wikipedia policy on WP:Biographies of living people apply to talk pages as well as entries. These claims require reliable sources or should be removed. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::That should be easy enough to provide.

:::::Thank you. CounterDolus (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Since you still haven’t done so, I have removed the unsourced claims. You may add any back that you can provide a reliable source for. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: enough sources to establish general notability guidelines Hellorld4 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep : Meets GNG and the sources are enough to provide notability. Gauravs 51 (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.