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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Bloom[edit]

Mia Bloom (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)

Unnotable: a minor professor at a minor college. All professors publish books and she is simply not notable. El cid, el campeador (talk) 13:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep of course. Are you kidding? Over 100 publications with over 2100 citations. This nomination is absurd. Zero^talk 13:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Widely-recognized, very widely-cited expert in her field; she is one of the foremost scholars of women in terrorism. Meets WP:PROF criterion 1 and probably 7, and is probably notable under WP:NAUTHOR if that's insufficient for some reason. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Every single one of my law professors has the same or better credentials than her, and yet none of them have a page. Shall I create for all of them or just stop the absurdity? El cid, el campeador (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Bloom has attracted attention from both scholarly colleagues and mainstream media sources. Business Insider calls her a "well-respected counterterrorism and national-security" expert, in an article that highlights her conflicts with Sebastian Gorka. This WGBH article about the growing demand for terrorism-studies professors provides a critique of some of her viewpoints on the field. Two of the contributors to the University of Georgia Press-published Women, Gender, and Terrorism—Farhana Qazi's "The Mujahidaat: Tracing the Early Female Warrior of Islam" and "Blinded by the Explosion? Security and Resistance in Muslim Women's Suicide Terrorism" by Katherine E. Brown—and take different opinions about Bloom's opinions regarding inequality and the motivations of female terrorists. Paige Whaley Eager's From Freedom Fighters to Terrorists: Women and Political Violence (published by Routledge) also provides a critique of Bloom's analysis of the female suicide bomber. Her individual works also receive attention in reliable sources, such as this review of Bombshell: The Many Faces of Women Terrorists, or this journal review of Dying to Kill. Ample other sources exist; the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism article on Bloom is probably not strictly independent, as START sponsored her lectures at the University of Maryland, although that's probably germane for article content in and of itself (and they identify her as a "leading terrorism expert" and a "renowned terrorism scholar"). And so on. I think that you either underestimate Bloom's notability, or you have some very exceptional law professors, because she fairly ably satisfies both the professor and author notability standards. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If your law professors are more notable than Prof. Bloom then they should have articles and I urge you to create them. The argument that someone shouldn't have an article because someone more notable doesn't have one is simply not valid. Zero^talk 01:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes WP:PROF. Lepricavark (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see a case for NPROF. For #1, "Overly narrow and highly specialized categories should be avoided.", a field of "women in terrorism" is a specialized category of "sociology". For #7. providing quotes as an expert for newspaper articles (or university press) isn't sufficient. As far as NAUTHOR, I don't see how any of her books are notable. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. The case for WP:PROF#C1 is that she has highly cited publications; the fact that the area she works in is more specialized than just generic sociology is irrelevant. She also has many published reviews of her works, including some in major mainstream sources such as Times Higher Education, The Globe and Mail, Publishers Weekly, etc., giving her a clear pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. One very highly cited paper. GS h-index of 17 is just adequate in a very highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Ambivalent keep - I apparently rewrote this article at some point almost a year ago. But... all things considered, the keep comments are a heckuva lot more convincing than the deletes, and overall it would probably be fairly borderline if "I can't be bothered to write the apparently deserved articles on my astounding professors" wasn't the best thing passing for a delete rationale. TimothyJosephWood 00:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There are 5,700 plus hits on Mia Bloom through Google Books alone. Absolutely meets notability guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2017 (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.