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 no consensus. --Coredesat 23:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Before anyone else points it out, Youngster of Germany does appear to be a "Single purpose account", who's first three edits are those that are required for an AfD. I'm sure someone will say he's a sock puppet or a troll. However, I feel the nomination rational is valid, regardless of the motive it or who nominated it. So, assume good faith, and all that jazz. -- Ned Scott 04:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure I am no sock puppet. I have about 75 edits as an IP address. In truth, I did make an account to create some AfDs. Vanity article really grind my gears. Youngster of Germany 00:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Terence Ong(C | R) 14:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN academic, and the article seems to be copyvio from here. Sam Clark 15:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — This version shows plenty of notability - Just look at all those references! Matthew Fenton (talk ·contribs·count·email) 17:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew, that's the part that Jimbo Wales removed. He said that the references were original research. Now, he's not "god", but considering he founded Wikipedia and the policy on that, I'd trust him to know what he's talking about. -- Ned Scott 22:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and? Your point being? It states she is notable (just as the page does now) and that is why I called the old revision. Matthew Fenton (talk ·contribs·count·email) 22:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missing the point of why original research is bad. -- Ned Scott 05:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Note that the information mentioned above by MatthewFenton was removed by Jimbo Wales. Ehheh 17:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The long-standing "professor test" would seem to apply here — I didn't know that there were professors in "dance ethnology", but if she is one (and at UCLA, a major university), she's presumably notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient citations and notability. --AndyFinkenstadt 18:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm not a big fan of vanity but let's not slit our own throats over it and delete good articles. The unsourced stuff should stay out though. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per AndyFinkenstadt and others. This strikes me as pretty clearly a retaliatory, sockpuppet AfD; absolutely no reason to AGF in the face of evidence like this. -- PKtm 23:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you think I'm a sock puppet, but okay. A sock puppet is another users second account right? YoG 05:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. As I noted above, someone would eventually say this. I don't see any evidence that one user is posing as two in this discussion, so it really shouldn't be an issue. Regardless of what one might think the motivation of the nom was, the deletion proposal is fairly sound, even if that is not our conclusion. -- Ned Scott 05:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ned, you are in a prolonged and bitter dispute here with Elonka Dunin right now, the daughter of this article's subject. That, combined with the SPA nature of the nominator and your frequent commentary here, makes me feel that this is a retaliatory AfD, and it should be dismissed out of hand. -- PKtm 19:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know the nom, I am not the nom, so I do not know the motivation for the nom. Regardless of any disputes at this time, the deletion rational is valid on it's own. I'm not the kind of person who would make a sock puppet and try to delete such an article just to "attack" another user. At the same time, I do not believe in avoiding a discussion that I know about in order to not hurt someone's feelings. I am confidant in my ability to separate the two situations and comment on them appropriately. -- Ned Scott 04:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't see how the subject of this article meets WP:PROFTEST. The criteria are that the person meets one of the following conditions: 1. The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources. 2. The person is regarded as an important figure by independent academics in the same field. 3. The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. 4. The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known. 5. The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources. 6. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them. Which of these does Dunin meet? She sounds like she's doing good work, but she's just an ordinary academic, of which there are many thousands in the world. Cheers, Sam Clark 15:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like she meets them all. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs • count • email) 16:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate on that? What is the important new concept, theory or idea she originated, for instance? Where are the multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews of her work? Cheers, Sam Clark 17:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have to agree with Sam Clark. This person has not made notable enough contributions to deserve an article. I don't find the fact that she has written several books in her field as carrying weight either — what professor has not published? Icemuon 16:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep,Per AndyFinkenstadt. Englishrose 19:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, because of the books and references he seems somewhat notable to me. bbx 19:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well referenced, other than the fact Brad Patrick and some of the admins seem to hate Elonka, I cant think of a valid reason to delete this. ALKIVAR™☢ 22:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the author of this article. I do not personally know Elonka but her mother's life and her specialized area of Slavic (Yugoslav) dance ethnology is of interest to me as well as many academics and lay people who study folk dance. I understand that there were a few parts of the article that were not referenced properly but a majority of the article was pulled from actual newspaper articles and magazines as well as websites belonging to prominent folk dance organizations and academic groups; all these are listed in the "reference" section. In addition to her academic notariety, Ivancich has worked in Hollywood appearing in television variety shows, movies ( "A Star Is Born") and live productions. During her long academic career, Ivancich published several articles, papers and books, and has served as chairperson and keynote speaker for several dance organizations and groups. I am amazed to find out how political Wiki has become -- it is very disappointing to witness how quickly people will scrap an article without considering how valuable its content may be to others who are interested in a particular subject matter. I believe Elsie Ivancich Dunin's academic work, notable stage and screen appearances more than qualify her notability and right to keep her article. --Nanusia 05:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete: Can't see that this person has made more contribution than any other NN professor and the fact that this article as practically been reduced to a booklist. Iceeye 10:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable based on publications. WP:PROFTEST is only a proposed guideline; I for one consider it far too restrictive. JamesMLanetc 15:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty notable, and a significant figure in the study of folk dance. --Fang Ailitalk 17:34, 18 November 2006 (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.