Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teresa Morgan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. — Aitias // discussion 00:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa Morgan

[edit]
Teresa Morgan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Not notable: see WP:ACADEMIC and talk page for the article. Uthor (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I began this article in June 2005. The Wikipedia:Notability (academics) guideline began in December 2005. Regardless of any mismatch between the examples discussed on the talk page of the article, I stand by my creation as for inclusion - Morgan's work is used for and is on book lists for UK and USA university level courses of education (see talk page for some examples that were easily found).--Alf melmac 15:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: I don't think being created before the biographical guidelines for academics is relevant. Guidelines don't have grandfather clauses for stuff that came before, and, more importantly, they're guidelines, not absolute rules. Morgan has a couple books and lots of entries on Google Scholar, although you have to filter through papers by other academics with the same name. So she may be notable. The biggest problem with the article as it currently stands is that it makes no claims at all about notability. It simply lists her credentials, her research area and two books. This is a resume entry only. Hairhorn (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The link I provided to google scholar with 124 results here is specific to the title of her first book, "Morgan "Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds"" gets 123, though I would be happy to be shown a better way of judging 'cited by peers'.--Alf melmac 18:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said on the talk page, she would need "several extremely highly cited scholarly publications" to satisfy WP:ACADEMIC on the basis of citations: as it is, she has only one such, to judge from the evidence presented.Uthor (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Two major book from Cambridge University Press are enough for notability. They are each in hundred of libraries, which is very good for specialized work on the ancient world. DGG (talk) 01:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being in many libraries does not feature in WP:ACADEMIC . It states there that "[t]he most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work[2]: either of several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or of a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates." She does not have "several extremely highly cited scholarly publications" to her name according to the evidence so far presented: she has *one* book that is cited. Nor has she "pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in [her] academic discipline", according to the evidence so far presented. Merely publishing 2 books (and having them bought by libraries) does not make someone's work notable according to the Wikipedia criteria.Uthor (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sure these publications show notability -- the existence of the impact is sown by the publications. thats how faculty make am impact as we both know well. . One good ,measure of this it the humnities , where citations are few and far between do to the inherent nature of the work, are the widespread acceptance of her books in a great many academic libraries., DGG (talk) 09:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DGG: Please make reference to the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I am somewhat concerned to see you state on your talk page that your current projects include "keeping articles about academics & academic organizations from deletion". Each case needs to be judged on its merits and with reference to the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (academics).Uthor (talk) 11:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a guideline. It doesn't always fit. I have !voted in disagreement with the guideline in both directions. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This case is borderline in my opinion, so I will only add a piece of information that may help others in forming an opinion. Web of Science does show a significant number of publications, 13 to be exact (J. Roman Studies, J. Theol. Studies, Classical Rev., etc.), but there's not a single citation among them. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Senior Dean at oxford, more titles and appts than anyone probably should have, seems pretty notable to me. I buy the held books argument to some extent, but the citations will need to be looked up in specialist indices, not general ones because her field is not well-covered in web 'o skant evidence--Buridan (talk) 15:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "Senior Dean" thing is a misconception. This is not an academic position. It just means that she is the fellow of Oriel College with particular responsibility for student disciplinary and welfare matters (in full: "welfare, upholding discipline, and ensuring a hospitable living and working environment for Junior Members", see http://www.oriel.ox.ac.uk/images/File/Current%20Members/MEMORANDUM%202008-2009.pdf ). It's *not at all* comparable to being Dean of a Law School or anything like that. In fact, it's seriously misleading even to include this in the article without saying what Senior Dean means at Oriel College. People coming from the American system, for example, will have a quite different conception of the role of a dean.
The "multiple positions" thing is also a misconception. In the Oxford system, tutorial fellowships are *always* coupled with university lectureships. College tutors *very often* have contracts requiring them to teach both for the college where they hold a fellowship and for another college or two (where they are called "lecturers"), if they would otherwise have an unusually light teaching load. Dr Morgan holds just such a combined appointment: a *single* appointment.
This article has been revised since I nominated it for deletion, but I'm not sure that quotations from the publisher's blurb are suitable for Wikipedia. These claims should be deleted unless a better source can be found, I think.Uthor (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I paraphrased their summary of the book. I have now indicated that it's summarising what the publisher, Cambridge University Press, is saying so as to correctly attribute the view and signal any 'bias'. I have added a bit from an American Journal of Philology review of the book, and likewise attribute it.--Alf melmac 17:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that she does not have the position claimed at Regent's Park College ( http://www.rpc.ox.ac.uk/index.php?pageid=189 ), and that she lectures for the university in ancient history, not classical languages. The claim that she was a "postgraduate student" at the RAM needs a source. I think it's at least unconventional to put references to reading lists in the body of a Wikipedia article. Surely these have to go. I also don't think a publisher's blurb counts as a reliable source. These blurbs often have no scholarly input whatsoever and are devised by marketing departments! The "first ... for fifty years" claim needs better support than that, or it should go.Uthor (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't an edit using {{fact}} or removing/correcting/adding the source for the obviously outdated been less of effort than describing it here? I have no reason to doubt the word of such a publisher, they are hardly a fly by night organization and it's clearly indicated that it is what the publisher is saying and not we ourselves. From this page we can see currently she is supervising post-grad candidates for Corpus Christi and Brasenose, but as you said, being involved in other college is no great shakes anyways. Note that the citation for postgrad at RAM is where you'd expect, following the information - the Jesus College citation.--Alf melmac 03:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I brought it up here because Buridan had been impressed by the number of different "jobs" she was doing all at once. Your new "as well as supervising" bit again implies that she's doing an "extra" job at "other university institutions", but supervising research students is just part of the duties of a university lecturer at Oxford. Graduate teaching is conducted only on a university level, not a college-by-college basis, so it's wrong to say that she's supervising candidates "for" other colleges. She is doing it for the university, as part of her job. So I really think that new bit should go. (I concede on the RAM thing, not that it's of much relevance to the notability question.) Regarding publishers' blurbs, having read a number of these over the years, I stand by my remarks. These marketing departments are in the business of selling books. A Wikipedia article should be more than free advertising.Uthor (talk) 11:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It implies/you infer? I have removed "as well as" as you infer this from that. Saying that we cannot trust what CUP tell us about it's own publications when we clearly mark the saying as being by CUP is free advertising I find frankly laughable--Alf melmac 12:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the advertising point, I can't agree. The book has been reviewed by independent parties. If there's a significant "first" here, then the reviewers will point it out. It's in the publisher's interest to claim that their product fills a major gap in the market. No one will take them at their word when there are reviews available by experts in the field that give a significantly different impression. http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/1999/1999-05-22.html carries weight, being a journal review by the leading expert in the field, which notes significant shortcomings in this book. The comments of the publisher's marketing department concerning the significance of their product are of no interest and should go. Also, I still don't like the misleading "other university institutions in Oxford", which could only refer to Oxford Brookes University. If you insist on including this, it should be "Oxford University research students". But as I said earlier, that doesn't distinguish her from any other university lecturer at Oxford University. I persist in thinking that writing one book that has received a mixed reception, and another one that has not yet been reviewed, does not qualify an academic for a Wikipedia article according to the guidelines.Uthor (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bryn Mawr Classical Review needs writing then, it needs including in Bryn Mawr College (as it is not mentioned once there) and on the disambiguation page Bryn Mawr as this wikipedia seems, like me, not know about this publication, likewise Raffaella Cribiore if she is "the leading expert in the field".--Alf melmac 14:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is your point exactly? BMCR is a long-established review journal in classics, and is widely cited (among other places) in Wikipedia: type BMCR into the search box for evidence. If you want to write a balanced article, you should refer to the criticisms in this review, and get rid of the advertising copy. As I say, my preference would be to delete the article, as Morgan isn't particularly significant. But I could settle for a balanced presentation of the facts about the reception of the book. As for Raffaella Cribiore, I'm sorry, but you're on shaky ground if you're trying to cast doubt on her scholarly credentials. Try http://books.google.com/books?q=raffaella+cribiore&btnG=Search+Books for starters.Uthor (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While you were typing that up I was indeed, putting in Raffaella's review, the BCMR as far as I understand it, is one the first online-only, free-access journals (eventually to be called "open access journals") which began appearing in the late 1980s. If the article was written by James J. O'Donnell I would not quibble of your view of who the expert in the filed is, but he is an editor of said online-only journal, the review was by Raffaella, who I have left red linked as I have yet to judge if she would be for inclusion or not. By virtue of the being one of the earliest open access journals BMCR would qualify for a page. I see no issue in stating what CUP state about its publication when it's clearly marked as being such. I do see a lot of cites, I also see some examples of BMCR contradicting non-online academic journals in their viewpoint, but hey, that's what the reference and attribution is about, so the reader can judge themselves.--Alf melmac 15:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking this into account. At least the article's a bit more balanced now (but I still think the reading list references have to go, unless you can find other Wikipedia articles on academics that mention this sort of thing so prominently). I haven't changed my opinion that the notability criteria for academics are clearly not satisfied, but that's a separate point.Uthor (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we accept that "a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" would be able to easily check that her book is on some of the universities' reading lists we can try to agree on a formulation of the line without the cites and listing of which universities have it listed, which I expect will change in time anyway, then I think can rest that point.--Alf melmac 16:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regarding the "web 'o skant" remark above. Some commentators seem to have an unexplainable contempt toward Web of Science (see e.g. an earlier discussion). Let me simply point out some facts that we would all do well to observe in trying to objectively vet individuals on the basis of Wikipedia:PROF. "Publications" are not all considered equal. Those appearing in un-indexed journals and conference books typically do not weigh equally with mainstream journal contributions (a very few sectors excepted) because the acceptance standards are appreciably different. Academic committees look to the archival literature to judge scholarship (as should we, I argue) and regularly use Web of Science as one of their main tool (as it covers about 10000 journals across all sectors). The one caveat is that the print edition must be consulted for papers before about 1988. I think it's reasonable for us to consider questions of scholarship notability in the same way an academic committee would, i.e. if the individual has no archival publications (readily found in WoS), then maybe they haven't actually done any notable work. If "specialist indices" (mentioned above) equates to "sources that list all the papers that mainstream journals rejected", then we really haven't much of a system to vet professorial notability. PS – the commentator above seems to have overlooked the fact that Teresa Morgan does indeed have plentiful representation in WoS (uncited though it is), implying her field is actually "well covered". Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
it is fine to use web of science when it is applicable, but it is frequently a null set as proven here. However, were you to take a look at a more specialized index, you may, or may find out notable efforts. I don't know if she is in there or not, alas, i do know you could likely make an argument with tools closer to her field. Objectively... while mostly a convenient fiction, is not universal in any tool. Much like google scholar doesn't cover things as well as it could, neither does web of science. there is in fact... no universal best resource that is not biased for or against any given set of fields. citation indexes are of course, never objective, they are contrivances, best to keep that in mind. --Buridan (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid there are a lot of tenure and promotion committees that disagree with you – they routinely use WoS for exactly the same purpose, i.e. to vet the level and notability of an individual's scholarship. Of course more sources are better – I think we would all agree with that. However, there seems to be an inscrutable contempt for WoS among some of the commentators. I don't know why they persist in saying that it is biased against this field or that field. Indeed, your claim that "it is frequently a null set as proven here" is patently false. I found 13 research articles she wrote in archival journals such as Classical Review – precisely the kinds of journals that people (erroneously) maintain that WoS does not cover. Please check for yourself. If you take the time, you'll be rather surprised at how broad WoS is. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 01:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Regardless of any perceived 'contempt', if WoS has a 'recognised standard', it would be a benchmark for listing the 'top ten cited' papers of academics on articles per se, on articles where the journal publications are not hot, like this one, it would be a benchmark comment as noting 'Web of Science notes 13 uncited papers to academic journals (or whatever)'.--Alf melmac 04:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having read this long debate and the recent attempts by the creator of the article to rescue it, the picture I get is of an accomplished career academic but one who does not stand out from the crowd. Her administrative positions do not confer notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

As was pointed out first, the article was written when the yardstick being applied didn't exist, I have recently edited it (or 'attempted to rescue it' as you colourfully say...) in response to comments, and specifically to two or three points of the guideline she is being held against: that is surely not a negative factor.
I believe she meets three (at least two depending on how one parses the guidelines;
1. "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources."
4. "The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions."
5. "The person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research."
Academics need only satisfy one of the conditions - she clears two of them, or three depending on how the guideline is parsed.--Alf melmac 06:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But you're taking these phrases out of context. The Wikipedia:Notability (academics) explains how they're to be interpreted, and Morgan just doesn't make the grade.
In detail:
1. She has not written either "several extremely highly cited scholarly publications" or "a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates". She has written *one* book (her doctoral dissertation) which is often cited. The guidelines make it perfectly clear that that is just not enough. This is not just a matter of interpretation.
4. Here too there is an explanation, which needs to be consulted: "for example, the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education". She has written one book that is occasionally mentioned on reading lists. It is not "widely used" and it is not "several books". So she does not make the grade on this point either.
5. She does not have a chair. She is a lecturer/college tutor, the lowest rank in Oxford faculty. Oxford has professors and readers (the next rank down from professor). She does not have either of these positions. Oxford elects to these positions annually in a "recognition of distinction" exercise, and she has not been elected to one of these positions.
So unless you have other evidence to offer, I don't see any case for claiming that she satisfies the criteria set out on the Wikipedia:Notability (academics) page as explained on that page. You are quoting selected bits without the attached explanations. When those are read, it's clear that she does not make the grade.Uthor (talk) 11:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those are from the examples and practical tips for applications of the guideline: which then begins "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1" followed on what you are insisting on her having. "Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline." But you won't accept the publisher's "copy" because it points out that her work is the first in fity years and breaks new ground. Criterion 4 is only exampled by "the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education." OK she has one book used as textbooks - how we want to interpret widely is a matter of opinion. 5. Is not exampled at all. She has a named appointment at a major institution of higher education and research - we already covered that you can parse that according to your view.
Regardless of that though, guidelines and policy follow discussion such as this, not the other way round, I already advised you I believed your bar to be set too high, which I still believe to be the case. This is not the first time that the specifics of WP:ACADEMIC have not matched the bar shown by community acceptance in discussion, no matter how good its intent.--Alf melmac 11:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to claim that "the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline", please find a reliable source for that. I don't see how writing on a subject that hasn't been written on for 50 years would count as pioneering a "significant new concept, technique or idea", and anyway this claim of the publisher's (that it's the first treatment for 50 years) is not true. The 6th edition of Marrou's "Histoire de l’éducation dans l’antiquité" came out in 1965; Morgan herself cites this work from the 7th edition (1975): http://books.google.com/books?id=ZfuiGIlEhE4C&pg=PA347&vq=marrou&dq=morgan+literate+education&source=gbs_search_r&cad=1_1 . Please find a reliable source such as a review if you wish to make use of this "significant discovery" criterion. Uthor (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We've been over and over this - the 'advertising copy' you think is utterly unacceptable - "the first new interpretation of Hellenistic and Roman education for fifty years" "She introduces fresh interpretations of the function of literature, grammar and rhetoric in education", from Cambridge University Press, whose words you say we cannot trust.--Alf melmac 11:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's publisher's blurb it's not a reliable source. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
It's this description here WP:NOR (primary sources) says Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. In the version I had, it clearly lablled the comments as by the publishers and named them, don't see what the issue is there myself, as it was accepted after I took out the 'fifty years' claim.--Alf melmac 12:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is obviously special pleading. Blurbs are a special case, being marketing material, not subject to scholarly scrutiny, but designed to sell books. There is ample discussion of this book out there, and you should not need to refer to a publisher's blurb if there is general agreement that the book makes a significant advance in scholarship on the subject.Uthor (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I make Henri-Irénée Marrou's Histoire de l'éducation dans l'Antiquité, Paris, Le Seuil, published in 1948; that's sixty.
You raise an important point here. *Any* academic book will contain something new, unless it's just a student text book. But Wikipedia's guidelines are about *significance*, not just saying something "new". Even Cambridge University Press's Marketing Department doesn't say anything about "significance", about solving a "major problem". If there's a reliable source that does make this claim, then please give the citation. (On Marrou, what makes you think the 1965 edition is identical to the 1948 edition? Anyway, the "first book on this subject for 50 years" claim has *no bearing* on the question whether Morgan offers a "significant new concept" etc. You can write the first book on a subject for x number of years and yet not significantly advance the discussion!)Uthor (talk) 12:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please support that claim with reference to the guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (academics)? Otherwise the discussion is merely subjective. There are guidelines in place, and the discussion should make use of them.Uthor (talk) 11:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. She appears to be an academic who has done what would in many places be barely enough to qualify for tenure: one Ph.D. thesis turned into a well-received and reasonably well-cited book, one more book since then for which I could find only a single review (in Revue des études anciennes). Although she seems to be on an acceptable career track, I'm not seeing the impact needed to pass WP:PROF #1, nor evidence of passing the other criteria. And the section about her thesis in the article is larded with block quotes from reviews beyond what would be appropriate in the bio of someone with more accomplishments with which to fill out an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your evaluation, I'm still deciding which of the two sections of the lard page apply most... Yes, this was a result of the nominator's comments at this AfD, they felt it balanced the article somewhat. With your comment on this though, I'm now sharpening the knife for a cut.--Alf melmac 22:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No: see Wikipedia:Notability (academics).Uthor (talk) 10:07, 1 June 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Teresa_Morgan&oldid=1069628182"