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. This is a borderline case between a keep and a no consensus closure, but the material difference between them is nil, and there is in no way a consensus to delete. Courcelles 23:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Rauscher

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Elizabeth Rauscher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No apparent claim of notability. Doesn't seem to meet either WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. See also the remarks on the article talk page.TR 15:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC) TR 15:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have also mentioned it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's History. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 22:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]
  • More trivial mentions. For instance, the University of Chicago book cite is actually an article about Henry Stapp: "A Science for Jacob: Henry Stapp and the Bell's Theorem Group". Here's the entirety of the content on Rauscher: "Zukav...thanks...Elizabeth Rauscher...". It says precisely nothing about Rauscher – nothing more than a name drop. Agricola44 (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    • That's not the entirety of the content; the entirety of the content is, "Elizabeth Rauscher, who founded the Fundamental Physics Group and encouraged nonphysicists to attend". She is likewise described as having "organized the Fundamental Fysicks Group at the Berkeley lab in 1974] in Newsweek. --JN466 18:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry I left out those extra 11 words. The point I'm making is that it's one part of one sentence that's devoted to her. Sources all seem to repeat the same talking point, essentially that she organized this informal group of physicists (a group not notable per se) and encouraged people to join it. Perhaps you're arguing that the number of sources repeating this is high enough to add up to notability? Agricola44 (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    • I could have added the next 100 words too, because the book goes on to say that among those attending the group Rauscher founded at Berkeley, "Zukav lists Fritjof Capra, John Clauser, who would later help to establish experimentally the truth of Bell's Theorem, and Fred Wolfe, who would go on to write a number of popular books on the mysticism of physics. In short, this was a small group of intellectuals who first gathered in the early 1970s at Berkeley to explore how consciousness and energy might be related and then met annually at Esalen in the late '70s and early '80s to continue their conversations. What they said, and particularly what some of them wrote, would have a major impact on the American alternative religious scene." Rauscher founded a group that was to have a notable impact on 1970s and 1980s culture and beyond, and will be of interest to readers. --JN466 19:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet again Rauscher is not mentioned in your prolix post. As I said above, these individuals (John Clauser et al.) are demonstrably notable for work they did individually, not because of being associated with some informal group. I think this point is crucial. The same cannot be said of Rauscher, as her remarkably average scientific record attests. You're basically pushing the view that Rauscher inherits notability by association with these people. Agricola44 (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • She is a notable figure in the history of science as the founder and organizer of a group that has exerted an influence no one expected them to have at the time they were active. If she fails PROF or AUTHOR, fine, that doesn't matter; there are other criteria. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 22:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What other criteria? You seem to be arguing that Rauscher is notable for inviting important physicists to meet "every Friday for brainstorming sessions", even though the subsequent "intellectual fruits" of the individuals in this group do not seem to include any real contributions from Rauscher herself. In other words, she's notable because of being associated with these people. I consider it differently. I see no substantive sources that document Rauscher, herself or her work, only trivial mentions. I see a very mediocre record in physics, as gleaned from the standard citation databases, over a 50-year career. I see no significant positions held, no prestigious awards, no widely held books she's authored (unless you consider the holographic multiverse book in 68 libraries to be "widely held"), no origination of a siginificant new concept, and so on and so forth. In short, I can't find anything in the gamut of notability guidelines under which she would pass. Sorry. Agricola44 (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • I'm arguing that she's notable because notable writers, including academics, have written about her. All the Wikipedia buzz words (PROF, AUTHOR, etc) refer to a guideline that offers suggestions, but that no one is obliged to follow. The bottom line in any notability consideration is the question: "are reliable sources writing about this person or topic?" And the answer here is yes. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 04:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree, except that you've left out the critical point that the sources are all trivial. The arguments you and several others have used here suggest you're willing to "lower the bar" for this case. Why? Agricola44 (talk) 16:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • This is another good example of the puffery that might confuse some folks who are not familiar with the internal workings of the academic world. Consider "She was a professor of nuclear science and astrophysics with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory from 1962 until 1979, and served as its chair from 1974 to 1977" – implying she was chair of a department of nuclear science and astrophysics. Of course, chair of a department is often a very good indicator of notability, but this statement applies to the informal physics group we've been discussing (see Rauscher's own CV). Therefore, this statement is extremely misleading, at best because "chair" is completely informal in this case, not a formal and proper title as recognized in academia. Makes all the difference. Agricola44 (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    • If a condescending tone is necessary to make your case, it's probably based on preconceptions of what's "important" rather than whether the sources support including this figure as a participant in a particular moment of intellectual history. Anyone familiar with the "internal workings of the academic world" would know that a woman active in physics during this period is notable as an aspect of women's history if sufficient RS document her activities. The early stage of women entering a traditionally all-male field is notable historically. As Slim Virgin and others have pointed out, there are broader historical considerations here than there would be for a BLP under WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. An argument for deletion that evokes "notability by association" is in error, because it applies to mere association, not active participation as a minor figure. Rauscher was a participant, not somebody's cousin or lover who was merely "associated". Cynwolfe (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it seems we agree then that she was a minor figure. This would seem to put the burden on those who want to keep the article to show that she made contributions as a minor participant. In turn, this would mean showing publications that had some sort of impact – thus bringing us back to the usual metrics of citations, h-index, book holdings, and the like. However, it's already conclusively established that Rauscher's grades here are way below what we take as showing notability. Agricola44 (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Yes, I absolutely agree that she was minor figure; but "minor" is a judgment of importance, not a consideration of WP notability, as there are plenty of minor figures (of the sort I listed above) who are historically notable; that is, they contribute to a comprehensive understanding of a particular intellectual movement, military campaign, or government, and their participation is noted in RS. That's why I think the emphasis on this discussion should remain on whether the sources are sufficient, and whether her notability can be stated in a way that makes it clear to someone who hadn't heard of her before. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We could probably settle this with some more sources on her specific activities within the group. -- 202.124.75.72 (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one has suggested that standards of notability should be lower for women. But one thing that concerns me about PROF is that it's written from an entirely male perspective, and a mainstream one. It perfectly fits someone who went to university at 18, graduated at 21, obtained his PhD at 24, entered a laboratory, and spent the rest of his life publishing, publishing, publishing. It doesn't easily accommodate women who struggled to get accepted when almost all of their peers were men. It doesn't accommodate people with alternative ideas and approaches, people with interrupted careers, people who for whatever reason remained outside the "publish till you drop" model. So we are defining notability in a way that is more likely to exclude women, and particularly women from a certain era. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 02:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are saying exactly that standards of notability should be lowered for females. Wikipedia judges notability on the basis of outputs, not inputs. For example, many people are born into a poverty which excludes them from the educational opportunities that might give them the possibility of achieving the academic notability described by WP:Prof. We do not make allowance for any circumstances that might have hindered achievement. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I'm saying we should judge notability by whether reliable sources write about that person. We shouldn't judge it by whether she has an "h-index of 5," which is an artificial, algorithmic way of looking at things, and not the only measure of achievement. It is not our job to measure achievement. It's up to the sources to decide whether this person is worth writing about, for whatever reason. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 03:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You change the subject. h-index, which it is helpful to read, is an objective way of determining eligibility for WP:Prof#C1 by peer comparison. For physicists, past precedent on these pages is that an h-index of around 15 is need to clearly satisfy WP:Prof#C1. As h-index is a non-linear measure, this subject's score of 5 falls very short of that mark, as pointed out by Agricola44. To revert to topic: I am an occasional editor of articles on eminent women, for example Antonia Fraser, Mary Louisa Molesworth, Pamela Hansford Johnson, Susan Hill, Ada Lovelace, Ann Widdecombe (who is regularly subject to spiteful vandalism). These women have one thing in common, they all achieved Wikipedia notability on the basis of their own achievements, nobody made special dispensation for them because they were women. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I'd appreciate if you wouldn't refer to "lower standards" and "special dispensation." If you want to argue that Rauscher isn't notable in your terms or in PROF terms as a physicist, then okay. PROF is just a guideline focusing on one narrow notabiity parameter. The only thing that matters for Wikipedia is whether reliable sources have written about her and her work, and they have, including most recently and extensively David Kaiser, a physicist and historian of science at MIT. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 06:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No one is saying that notability standards should be lowered for women; the point being made is that this woman was doing something that very few, if any other women could do at the time since it was historically dominated by men - if not an all-male club. Dreadstar ☥ 04:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More special pleading. There were women physicists active in the 1960s. Mildred Dresselhaus comes to mind. Your claim is like saying that notability should be lowered for left-handed physicists as there aren't many of them working in the field. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
It was obviously harder for a woman to become a physicist than for a man in the era Rauscher was working in, when only two percent of physics PhDs in America were obtained by women. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 06:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Left-handed physicists? That's a totally ludicrous simile, Xxanthippe; it's clear where the 'special pleading' is coming from and it's not from those who know how historically difficult it has been for a woman to get into physics - even in the enlightened 1960's and beyond. Let's not minimize this woman's accomplishments. Dreadstar ☥ 07:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Disrupting thread to keep related comments together). I'm dismayed but not surprised to see the hostility toward women's history here. To recognize women who left a mark by entering a traditionally all-male field is hardly creating "lower standards" of notability for women. We don't argue that all Rosa Parks did was ride a bus, and since people ride buses all the time, and since other African Americans had made acts of defiance before, why should Rosa Parks be notable? I confess that I don't get that line of reasoning. People participating in and contributing to cultural change is one of the marks of historical notability. What's at issue here is whether this admittedly minor figure's activities can be documented in RS to a satisfactory degree. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While there are enough sources to satisfy notability without even attending to gender issues, there are sources that discuss Rauscher from the point of view of gender issues as well; e.g. [1], [2]. --JN466 11:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sad to say that the misrepresentation of sources is getting worse. These do not discuss Rauscher in the substantive way you claim. The first is nothing more than a conference summary that reports broadly on the speakers and activities. Of Rauscher, it says merely: "Next, Elizabeth Rauscher (LBL) described some of the problems that confront women seeking careers in astronomy and physics." Almost all physicists attend conferences and such a mention in a summary is quite trivial. The second one is an essay by Rauscher, not about her, entitled "On Science, Women, and Mysticism" published in an obscure and apparently now defunct periodical called Woman of Power. I don't think it can be made any more plain that, if GNG is to apply (which seems to be what is suggested), substantive sources about the subject are what is required. It is clear that many proponents have been searching hard. Perhaps there are some substantive sources yet to be found (in which case I will gladly switch my position), but so far we have none. Agricola44 (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I think I'll give you that one, and admit to a pang of embarrassment. I thought Woman of Power had been a more substantial publication; the first Google Books search page listed 4040 hits, but I see now that by the second page we're down to 15, or at least less than 20. So scratch that. I still think she is notable enough, but these two sources don't make a difference here. Regards, --JN466 01:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Everybody seems agreed that the subject fails WP:PROF. I don't thinking attacking the WP:PROF guideline helps the article; nor does the "she is notable because he is a woman" argument. The obvious road to keeping the article is based on satisfying WP:GNG, and there is quite possibly enough material (maybe even in Kaiser alone) to do that. However, someone needs to shift attention away from this AfD towards the article itself. The main claim to notability will probably be in the WP:FRINGE "new age" elements such as "remote viewing" (see e.g. Kaiser p 262), but that's no obstacle, as long as someone can dig up and document a few more references. There may be some here: [3], although most of the books there are of dubious reliability. -- 202.124.74.59 (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A sensible approach and consistent with my first comments on this page. The references you point to are of a fringe/crank nature (at least the first few pages that I have looked at). That by itself is not objectionable; I have no problem with fringe topics provided that they are labelled as such and do not masquerade as mainstream science. As happens often with fringe scientists, the person starts off working in mainstream topics and then moves into the fringe. This accounts for the paucity of citations as fringe sources are not used by most citation databases. The subject is not notable for her mainstream work so arguments about how hard it is to do a PhD are beside the point. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
@SlimVirgin. I decline to accept your directions as to what language I can and cannot use on Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
In fact it seems she has won a "Green Award," which suggests she is a major figure in the WP:FRINGE community, and hence probably notable. -- 202.124.72.57 (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please prod those first to leave AfD free for the controversial cases. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks. One forgets about Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm quite certain an admin will notice the difference between "keep she is a woman", which is a reductio ad absurdum of what's actually been said here, and the element of historical notability that accrues to women who participated in changing the culture of traditionally all-male fields. There's nothing intellectually dubious, or even particularly feminist, about recognizing that as one element of notability among others. I usually don't write on "women's topics," but a few months ago became aware through outside media that WP is perceived as hostile to women. As a result, I became part of the new Women's History project (not WikiProject Feminism) because I wanted to counter that perception and encourage women to edit, and wanted to improve coverage of topics pertaining to women that might have been neglected. I'm finding discussions such as these to be very illuminating. Once it was pointed out that Rauscher belonged to a generation when women physicists were rare, and therefore that was one element of her notability, editors who included that as an argument were disparaged as supporting her just because she was a woman, without regard to the obvious historical perspective (which would not be a factor in women physicists today). The hostility to a legitimate historical view seems disproportionate, and supports what I'd read but not personally experienced on WP. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article will almost certainly be kept now (either as "keep" or "no consensus"), so don't panic. However, I think you misunderstand the discussion above: editors are discounting what you call the "legitimate historical view" because no sources support it (true though it might be). If some author had discussed Rauscher in a history of women in science, we would all have voted "keep" and gone home. You appear to be using WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to infer what such a history would say, and that's against the rules (as I understand them). Similarly (and I think the same is true of Brian Josephson below, and several editors above) you are confusing significance (notability in the ordinary sense of the word) with WP:N (notability in the Wikipedia sense). It's quite possible that all kinds of unrecognised geniuses are lacking articles because their achievements aren't documented, and so it must necessarily be in an encyclopaedia. It's unfortunate that some editors feel "disparaged," but it's not misogyny (there are male and female editors on both sides here). Rather, it's a recognition that simply claiming "she was a female physicist at a time when few existed" is not a valid argument under WP:GNG. In fact, Rauscher's career as a physicist has so far left few footprints on history, which is why several editors have !voted "delete." However, it is also becoming clear that her role in alternate religious thought has left quite a few footprints, and that should be enough to settle the notability question on its own. -- 202.124.72.4 (talk) 04:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But David Kaiser is an historian of science, and he did write about her fairly extensively, and he did discuss the difficulties she had as a woman during that era in physics. But for some reason you want to discount him. You've even suggested that MIT is not a reliable-enough source of information about him. [4] So it's quite hard to see where you're coming from. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 07:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the gender issue, the year Rauscher obtained her PhD, 1,645 other women obtained PhDs in physical sciences; I'm not sure all of those women necessarily satisfy WP:N. As to Kaiser, I'm certainly not discounting what he says about Rauscher, although he doesn't seem to say much about her contributions to physics per se. Several editors above have questioned whether the mentions of Rauscher in Kaiser's book are enough to satisfy WP:N, although I think, on balance, that they do. Fortunately, there's other material apart from Kaiser. I don't think you do the article any favours by trying to focus the AfD debate solely on Kaiser's book, nor by arguing with me when I'm putting a "keep" case. As to Kaiser himself, he's not up for AfD (and he would pass under WP:PROF #5 if he was), although it is unfortunate (and a breach of WP:BLP) that his article hangs entirely autobiographical material (such as his personal MIT web page), rather than, say, the official MIT staff list. And, please, WP:AGF and don't misrepresent me. -- 202.124.74.69 (talk) 07:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reasonable approach. I've said more than once that "keep" is of course dependent on the existence of sufficient sources, which SlimVirgin's been working on. My objections were to the disparaging tone of "just because she's a woman." There's a big difference between that and questioning whether RS support the subject as a topic of women's history (among other elements of notability). The Women's History project in fact spent a lot of time addressing these kinds of issues in crafting criteria for inclusion within the project, and (at the risk of going off-topic) if any editors want to know some of the ways we excluded "just because she's a woman", see Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History#Scope (and particularly the criteria for biographies). This applies of course only to our project, not general notability, since the project deals only with history, not current events and contemporary culture. But some people involved in this discussion may be interested. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry you found the tone disparaging; I'm sure nobody intended it that way. Those Women's History project guidelines are excellent, and it's a pity they weren't mentioned earlier. It's not actually clear to me that Rauscher meets them, but I presume that's all been resolved by within-project discussion. -- 202.124.72.140 (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The closing admin should note that the above comment is from Brian Josephson. He seems to be modest enough not to be pulling rank here, but I think maybe his !vote might carry a little more weight mass than others, on the basis of his expertise. For what its worth (not a lot, admittedly) I agree with him: keep. Rauscher may well not meet the notability requirements for her work within orthodox science, but that isn't the basis for the !keep votes above. Ignoring the feminist arguments (not that we necessarily should), Rauscher seems to have been an active participant in a trend challenging orthodoxy within physics - a challenge that seems to have had significant results, even if most of us don't have a clue what they mean. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The trend is clearly toward keep, though I think the policy justifications are extremely weak (like the above opinion that feels we should judge on an imaginary combination of various guidelines). I think the following is an accurate synopsis: there is one substantive source (6 paragraphs about Rauscher and a picture in Kaiser's recent book) and numerous other claimed ones that have been exposed as trivial upon closer examination. There now also seems to be rough consensus that she does not pass AUTH or PROF, so this case will be assessed from GNG. Generally, multiple sources are required, though it's pretty clear that the majority here will not hold this accountable. If this article is indeed kept, I hope it will be a fair presentation, i.e. not misrepresenting Rauscher as a renowned physicist, but rather as someone on the fringe. Right now, the bulk of the article casts her as a mainstream physicist and claims she is best know for founding FFG. In fact, she is much better known for her numerous new-age endeavors, e.g. her company, BioHarmonic Resonance and its holistic healing services, her remote viewing activities (mentioned, but only in passing), and her association with Nassim Haramein. In fact, her previous WP reputation has largely been established by one of the many Haramein AFDs, where I had difficulty convincing Avsav (whose intimate knowledge suggested either Haramein or Rauscher) that a paper jointly authored by the two was nonsense, for example in that it confused basic concepts like energy and torque. (Note that the current version tries to semantically wiggle around the problem, see pp 10.) While Rauscher was active in mainstream physics at one time, she departed long ago for the fringe. I've no problem with BLPs of such folks, as long as they're a truthful representation, which this one is currently not, and so long as the person is notable, of which 1 source does not convince me. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    The contention in this debate arose because the main authors of the second version of the BLP seemed to have minimal experience of writing on science topics and appeared to know little about the culture of science, in particular the distinction between fringe and mainstream science (the Demarcation problem). Mainstream scientists regard this distinction as of crucial importance and resent attempts of the latter to masquerade as the former. I don't think this was done deliberately in this case but was just due to a lack of cultural sensitivity. Some Wikipedians even seek to banish fringe science altogether from Wikipedia. I favor the inclusion of fringe topics provided that they are properly identified as such, and I have come under attack [5] myself for trying to include even properly labelled BLPs with a fringe flavor. The article needs revision to separate its mainstream/fringe aspects clearly. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    Comment I share those concerns about the POV of the article. -- 202.124.72.140 (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not a topic for AfD, but for the article talk page. Feel free to recommend sources there to cover those aspects of her work that may be considered fringe. The Rosen Publishing book is reputably published and can perhaps be used to add a couple of sentences. --JN466 01:01, 24 August 2011 (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.
More