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 \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Carpenter (academic)

[edit]
Jennifer Carpenter (academic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

BLP of Associate Professor in which all information about the individual is from a primary source (pages on the university site she would have written about herself). There is one independent source that is there solely to site the existence of aschool in Hong Kong and which does not mention this person's name. Fails WP:ACADEMIC. DreamGuy (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dunno, this smells of scraping by. There are thousands of profs with articles in two or more top journals. And "published in numerous journals" is not a claim to notability, not for an academic, anyway. Hairhorn (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that it all boils down to DGG's opinion that she is notable based on a few citations that millions of other professors have. Worse, he willfully and knowingly makes arguments that go against consensus expressed by guidelines, like arguing that notability can be inherited from an employer or from a publisher. This is not the way administrators on Wikipedia are expected to conduct themselves. Drawn Some (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DGG's opinions are usually right on the mark. He also explains them well enough that they can be argued with on their merits, and if by having a dialog a new consensus if formed, it will be a better consensus. But see my comment below. Abductive (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Sometimes his opinions are right on the mark but at least as often he argues to keep clearly non-notable articles by making up borderline non-sensical reasons or actually uses arguments as he did here implying that someone can inherit notability from an employer or that having a university-branded publisher makes a book or author notable. If he doesn't think our notability guidelines are any good he should advocate for changing them but he shouldn't deliberately circumvent or ignore them. That is disruptive. Drawn Some (talk) 23:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DGG is arguing for a shorthand way of presuming notability using citation counts, based on the likelihood that if one searches hard enough, one will find irrefutable evidence of notability; reliable sources that say that the academic did notable work. I think that DGG worries that there is a shortage of people on Wikipedia with the time, access rights and qualifications to do these searches, and is worried that if citation counts aren't accepted as evidence, the floodgates will open and good articles will be lost. Abductive (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Though I am not going to disagree with the statement that there are insufficient people working on this subject, my argument is quite simply that WP:PROF specifies, and in my opinion correctly, that notability is shown by having " made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." This impact is measured by citation. That what is meant by the term, impact on a discipline, and the secondary sources are the citation indexes. I am not in the least challenging consensus this time (though I sometimes do, and when I do, i try to say so specifically). I support the WP:PROF consensus--as well I might, for I helped form it. I'm using exactly the consensus standard, and I think she meets it. A little borderline, yes, but still she meets it. DGG (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An occasional WP:IAR is fine but the purpose of AfD is to see if articles meet our guidelines for inclusion, not to create new guidelines. We have several editors who consistently ignore consensus as expressed in guidelines at AfD and it makes it much more difficult and creates problems like the bilateral relations situation. Totally unacceptable and disruptive. Drawn Some (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tend to subscribe to encouraging full discussions and don't see this point of view as disruptive at all. DGG civily stated an opinion and made a point. Focus on the comments, not the person making them. Are the comments incorrect? Please explain why.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see WP:KOOLAID--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion is fine. Discussion is based on the guidelines for notability. Occasional WP:IAR is fine but constantly ignoring GUIDELINES is disruptive. Guidelines should not be routinely ignored, especially by an administrator. It is very disturbing. I am particularly referring to repeated claims that someone is notable by some kind of inheritance from a publisher or employer. Drawn Some (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question again, I get that you disagree--fine. But WHY do you disagree, and WHY were the comments "disruptive"?--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just a matter of me disagreeing. It is consensus expressed in guidelines that notability is not inherited in this case, other guidelines at other times. I am not claiming that the comments in this AfD alone are disruptive, but the PATTERN of consistently ignoring or arguing against consensus expressed in the notability guidelines IS disruptive. AfD is not the place to change the guidelines through a constant pattern of ignoring them and deliberately seeking to undermine them. It is disruptive because it slows down the process of AfD. AfD is to implement a general consensus on notability and that general consensus shouldn't routinely be overridden by a few vocal editors. Gaming the system and processes to achieve a result against consensus is highly disruptive. If DGG were an IP he would be warned and eventually blocked. The notability guidelines are no less important than guidelines on sockpuppetry or civility. Here's another good example of how this behavior is disruptive and interferes with decision-making: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jak_&_Daxter_vehicles. You know, this is probably not the place to continue this conversation, maybe it should be at RFC. Drawn Some (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying I still have to disagree. If someone wants to state an opinion, and that opinion is against consensus, then they should be able to do so as long as they are civil about it. It's not disruptive, it's a discussion. True consensus will prevail, and if it's real consensus it can withstand the test of occasional disagreement.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I agree with you 100% but pivoting on the word "occasional". I even think it's healthy. But in this case it is not occasional, it is "usual" and it is highly disruptive. Like I said though, this isn't the place for this discussion. Drawn Some (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WABBITSEASON -- WP:DUCKSEASON !--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My point of view is that an article on a professor can be appropriate if their work influenced the field/world enough that the related Wikipedia articles would be different. I realized some time ago that every sentence in a college textbook represents the life's work, or at least a major project, of a (now important) academic. But if you can't find a reliable source that says that Dr So-and-so discovered/influenced/transformed/redefined some concept, then you have no secondary sources and the article should be deleted. In the case of academic publications, review articles are secondary sources par excellence. Is there a way to look for citations in review articles only? Abductive (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way of distinguishing review articles from original research articles unless one knows the field in detail. Some journals publish both types of article in the same issue. Most papers of original research contain an introductory review section at the beginning. An article is unlikely to be cited in a review until it has been recognised by cites in the original research area. An argument could be made that cites in articles of original research are the more important but I know of no consensus that one type of cite is regarded as more important than the other. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • I always want to see a claim of notability. For example, the person who created this article also created one for Menachem Brenner, another finance prof in the same school. Dr Brenner is "also the co-inventor (with Professor Dan Galai) of the volatility index based on the prices of traded index options". See, that is something encyclopedic. Abductive (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some reasons would be helpful. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:32, 27 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.
More