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 delete. We decide consensus on the basis of policy based opinions. and the keep arguments are in total disregard of WP:RS and other policy. DGG ( talk ) 19:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joelle Schmitz[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Joelle Schmitz (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)

Does not meet WP:BIO, not notable, seems like self-promotion, several citations are dead links, and several reference her own website joelleschmitz.com and not credible secondary sources 1337 Tibet (talk) 06:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - The USA Today op-ed piece has not been cited by a large number of people. It has been cited 4 times by students. Much of the so-called "published" academic articles appear to be conference papers that have been uploaded to academia.com, not published in peer-reviewed journals. A thorough search of all of my university's resources showed no publications by this person in any academic journals, only the USA Today op-ed piece. Many of the linked articles on this page seem to be simple campus news items (e.g., 'welcome to campus' and 'so-and-so will be attending such-and-such conference', etc). There isn't significant coverage of this person in credible secondary sources, nor does she have a significant record of scholarly publication showing her to be a notable expert in this field, nor is there evidence of her work being widely cited by others.1337 Tibet (talk) 07:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 01:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Hmlarson, I disagree that there are 'several' references to this person in a Google books search. While one might get a large number of raw hits there, the context matters. The first hit, for example, to the book 'Run Like a Girl: How Strong Women Make Happy Lives' is a link to a mention in a book that has nothing to do with her supposed notability as an expert on regulation and pertains to her being a giant slalom skier (she doesn't appear to be notable for that either). Four are footnote citations to a single conference paper that she was the secondary author of with Dr. Kalypso Nicolaïdis, who actually seems to be a genuinely notable scholar. Schmitz has indeed made one contribution to a book called "Redefining Europe" but that is hardly significant. The rest seem like false hits not referencing her at all. In the context of academia, these are very run-of-the-mill accomplishments that any grad. student from a tier one institution would be expected have, but that does not in itself make them notable people.1337 Tibet (talk) 06:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Nominating editor is attempting to add another !vote. It's clear this article could use improved referencing and a list of publications, not deletion. Hmlarson (talk) 06:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that there aren't sufficient publications by this person and significant references in credible secondary sources to demonstrate notability for this person because this person simply has not made a significant impact in their discipline.1337 Tibet (talk) 09:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion. Not necessary to say it again and again masked as a !vote. Hmlarson (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmlarson this is a debate, not a vote.1337 Tibet (talk) 02:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Thanks for removing it. Hmlarson (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - The two links given to the two articles that she authored/co-authored are not to peer-reviewed publications. One appears merely to be a working paper (not published in a peer-reviewed journal), while the second article is a co-authored conference paper and seems only to have appeared in the respective conference proceedings. Working papers and conference proceedings are grey literature, not peer-reviewed articles. In any event, the citation rates for these are far too low to meet WP:SCHOLAR criterion 1.
The citation mentioning her in the dedication of the book "Case in Point" by Cosentino reads:
"Thanks owed to all the students from around the world who contributed thoughts and case questions. Special thanks are owed to Agnes Noel, Basil Waite, Deepa Gupta, Gonzolo Zubieta, Jeremy Neuner, Joelle Schmitz, Lillian Zhao, Michael Zhang, Mukund Jain, Tatum Bell III, Swami Swaminathan, and Veronica Chau."
Interestingly, this book appears not to be related to her topic of supposed expertise (regulation) but rather on interview preparation. In any event, there is no context given for what her contribution might have been to the book, just "special thanks to..." and seems entirely trivial.
As to your other point that she initiated "two policy-changing national conferences," what policies were changed as a direct result of her work? If true, oughtn't there be third-party sources arguing that impact? As it is, I don't see that claim supported here or outside of Wikipedia.1337 Tibet (talk) 12:37, 28
Reply - Fails WP:GNG because it fails WP:RS. For sources to be considered reliable within the meaning of WP:RS, sources need to be independent such that they have no interest in the topic they are covering per WP:IS. Her coverage in campus news articles at McGill, Harvard, the U. of Minnesota, and the U. of Denver are institutions where she was either a student, a staff member, or are regarding a conference that the university itself was hosting.1337 Tibet (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I respectfully disagree with your opinions and findings. Nick Darling (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin I am seeing suspicious activity on this AfD. Accounts which have not edited for more than 3 years are suddenly coming to vote here? It is very clear that some offline canvassing is going on. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:24, 2 August 2016 (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