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. Michig (talk) 07:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Wicker[edit]

Nancy Wicker (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)

Seems like an interesting professor, but fails WP:NACADEMICS. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Has been elected to the Royal Society of Humanities, Uppsala, Sweden, and the Internationales Sachsensymposion. Both selective and prestigious appointments I think. (probably also the first woman and the first American in each case)

President of the Society of Historians of Scandinavia.

Also professor at three different universities including outside her own country at Uppsala University.

Probably also meets WP:AUTHOR in having created a significant body of work in several areas such as gender and archaeology, jewellery in the early middle ages, and runic inscriptions. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As Philafrenzy has argued, she would appear to meet several of the criteria in WP:NACADEMICS, which merely requires that the subject meet just one of the criteria. Edwardx (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - WP:NACADEMICS states that "the person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association". The Society of Historians of Scandinavia doesn't even have a Wiki article. And how, specifically, does this biography meet WP:AUTHOR? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the Royal Society of Humanities, Uppsala, Sweden, and the Internationales Sachsensymposion, as I think was clear. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (with a caveat) Her work does not look notable. no books, except edited collections, is unusual for a historian - to say the least. Worse, Gender and the archaeology of death, got perhaps only one review, in a minor journal Canadian Journal of Archaeology, and although the editor's task in such a volume is to write the introduction, that review (here:[1]) dismissed her contribution: "Arnold and Wicker fail to provide a well-informed statement that situates this group of papers in a theoretical or methodological context." That's as bad as it gets. My caveat is that she would qualify if being an international member of the Royal Society of Humanities, Uppsala, (Do we have the correct name for this society? see: Swedish Royal Academies) provides automatic notability, i.e., if the Society is truly notable, and if international membership confers notability. This, however, is a slender reed, notability in scholarship is usually more obvious.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's here: Royal Society of the Humanities at Uppsala. According to the Swedish article, membership is limited to 50 scholars. She's also a member of Det Konglige Nordiske Oldskriftselskab (The Royal Nordic Society of Antiquaries) according to the sources. On the books, I don't believe that whether a book gets a good or a bad review is relevant. Nor is the fact that someone produces mainly articles and edited works rather than full length books. Different scholars work in different ways and some prefer to publish mainly in articles and that may be the norm in their area. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Do you know what the Society's selection criteria are? I cite the book review simply because it was so dismissive of her work that is evidence - not definitive evidence, but evidence nevertheless - of low regard by fellow scholars. As for books and WP:PROFESSOR, book reviews can validate notability; edited volumes - not so much. Articles can, of course establish notability, but whereas reviews of authored books in significant journals establish notability, when a scholar in the humanities has published articles but not any authored books, the individual articles need to be queried for notability. i.e., are they cited and are they discussed as significant work by other scholars?E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the criteria are. Book reviews can be helpful, but for evidence of the regard she is held in I believe the best measure would be election to the Swedish, Nordic and Saxon societies and presidency of the Historians of Scandinavia. There is more in the 28 page CV if you are having difficulty getting to sleep. (I know its not independent). I think she is as much of an archaeologist as an art historian and in the arch field it is common to work mainly by article and conference paper rather than single author books. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The Society of Historians of Scandinavia (SHS) is an historians' interest group in the Society for the Advancement of Scandinavian Study (SASS)" [2] While I am sure this does connote the respect of her colleagues, this is not a major scholarly organization it does not meet criteria for notability under WP:PROFESSOR or WP:AUTHOR. A major scholarly organization would be something like the American Historical Association, the College Art Association and possibly/arguably the Society for the Advancement of Scandinavian Study. I'm casting about for something to establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clearly an influential academic in her field. Our notability criteria for academics are currently quite a bit tighter than the criteria for porn actresses, athletes and musicians - I think it is reasonable to cut a little slack in cases like this.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as this seems notable and acceptable for the time being. SwisterTwister talk 07:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• comment citation numbers on her articles are low, note that some of these (the bench science ones) are to another Nancy Wicker, and that citations of the book are usually to specific articles by other scholars within the edited volume [3] We need a more persuasive argument to keep. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - a first woman (academic) and a first as an American with a membership in a particular international society are both notable events. Atsme^📞📧 22:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as all the biographical information can be verified from reliable sources, which is the nub of WP:N. Apart from that, Wicker appears to be a more significant figure than most academics. When it comes to that criterion quoted from WP:NACADEMICS about "an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association", the meaning of "highly selective" and "prestigious" is pretty subjective. Whether the Society of Historians of Scandinavia has a WP article or not, those descriptions must be arguable, and they do seem to apply to the Royal Society of the Humanities at Uppsala, which is limited to fifty members. Moonraker (talk) 06:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Help me out here I understand the inclination of members of the Wikipedia Womens' History Project to support keeping women on Wikipedia. But we need to have standards. We could keep this article if 1.) Someone could demonstrate that the Royal Society of the Humanities at Uppsala (a new article started, appropriately, to support Wicker at AFD) is selective. Not all small academic societies are. 2.) If we could find a public impact of her work, my searches on Proquest Newspapers turned up a single line in a single article about how her department is part of a university-wide effort to prepare students for the real world. 3.) - and this is the real shot we have to keep her - if we can demonstrate academic impact. She is in a smallish field: art historical analysis of archaeological artifacts in Scandinavia, especially as pertains to the role of women in society. What we need to show is that she has impacted this field with her close looks at topics including: the advent of Christian iconography in Scandinavia; infanticide; women's roles in medieval Scandinavia. My problem here is that her citation numbers are low. The usual way around this is to show that her work is discussed by other scholars in her field. For scholars with any impact at all in history, archaeology, art history, this is readily established by typing a name into google books and finding sentences like: "As Nancy Wicker has shown in her study of..." Or, better yet, "The influence of Nancy Wicker's finding that..." Here, my problem is that all I am finding are what scholars call "dropping a footnote, i.e., in the discussion of a topic on which she has published, the author includes her in a footnote. This, as scholarly impact goes, is on a level with "name checking" (in which the author writes something like: "See discussions by Nancy Wicker, Suzy Q. and Joe Schmo), I did see a footnote or two in which she was name checked. So, can someone Help me out by finding a scholarly publication in which her work is discussed as impactful. Or something. We don't keepp academics simply because they have a long c.v.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to rely on her CV, other people who ought to know have already decided she matters. Three universities have appointed her to professorships, including Uppsala which is one of the best universities in Europe according to our article, and three selective societies have appointed her to membership: Royal Society of the Humanities at Uppsala, The Royal Nordic Society of Antiquaries, and the Internationales Sachsensymposion. I find that more persuasive than your inability to find the correct form of words in databases. I am struggling to know why you object so much to this woman. Was someone by that name nasty to you when you were a child, leaving you with a lifetime aversion to people named Wicker? Philafrenzy (talk) 12:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Please WP:AGF. I have now spent a significant amount of time trying to keep this article up by sourcing it. I often do this for academics. I beg your indulgence for seeming to be overly legalistic, but the rule sates: ":3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE)." We need to establish that one of these three academic societies meets this standard. Few Academic societies do. I do see that the one at Upsala has only 50 members, that does not mean that it is "highly selective and prestigious." It has to be both. Or we need to demonstrate using WP:RS that she passes other criteria listed on WP:PROFESSOR. If you know her or her work, or if you work in medieval Scandinavia or art history, you can probably supply such evidence, and I hope that you will. I am asking for evidence not because I am persnickety, but because, at this point, keeping Wicker, (the evidence presented to date supporting keep is that she belongs to Academic Societies and publishes) would not merely qualify virtually every professor in America, it would be a radical change in Wikipedia's standards for notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree we are uncertain exactly how "selective and prestigious" those societies are but we only need one of the three to be selective and prestigious don't we even if she had no other claim to notability? I note that two of them are Royal societies, which, while not determinative, is suggestive of their exclusivity. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's ask Sweden.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• comment - no need to ask Sweden, just do the research: [4], [5], [6]. In addition to multiple grants, awards and scholarships from the National Endowment for the Humanities, she has authored/co-authored 14 publications. She meets the requirements for Wikipedia:NACADEMICS without question. Atsme^📞📧 21:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Atsme. I see that you have been editing for several years. Surely you understand that the sources you just brought are not WP:RS. And can see that every source now on the page is primary. In the event that you have contributed to Wikipedia, but never been involved at WP:AFD, you might want to review the rules. Many fine academics have worthy careers, but do not meet WP:PROFESSOR. SOMEONE needs to provide WP:RS showing that she meets WP:PROFESSOR or otherwise meets WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per WP:NACADEMICS,--BabbaQ (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2015 (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.