The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to  Keep. Consensus is to keep, considering en:WP:NACADEMIC, which is a guideline that backs the keep arguments up (point 6). --IWI (talk) 05:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Greene (archaeologist)

[change source]
Elizabeth Greene (archaeologist) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Pure Evil has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Notability concerns. She does not seem to have done anything of particular note. She seems well regarded in her field and has published works, but there is nothing especially notable here. Most of the references are from her employer so there are issues with COI there. Pure Evil (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

[change source]
That 40% is two quotes (sort of) attributed to her in an newspaper article. The second is just implied to be her words - it doesn't actually say it is from her. There is no usable biographical info there. As to your added ref (which is not in the article), it proves she will someday be the president of an organization in a niche field. A group that no one has even bothered to write an article about. En. has an article on the group and it even mentions this person. No link to her, just a mention in part of the last sentence in the section on governance. En doesn't see her as notable. At best, holding this position is OneEvent. There are little to no independent RS that provide useful biographical information on her. Even her nationality is up in the air.. North American archaeologist... can we narrow it a bit beyond a continent with 580 million people and a host of nationalities, cultures and races. And she is between 123 and 24 yrs old (born 19??) - Not really useful to anyone. Pure Evil (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you just call archaeology a "niche field"? And being president of an organization is not a single event. It shows leadership and notability within her field of academia. Keep --Gotanda (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1: Yes. It is a minor field that does not get a lot of coverage in independent secondary sources. 2: She is not currently president. First Vice President will be. not is. 3: President of an organization would just imply they are the best in that organization. Best of a subset is not notable on its own. 4: there is not enough interest in the article to even get users here to fix the issues with the article when the article is pointed out here. Why keep an article which you can't be bothered to put minimal effort into bringing up to basic standards? Pure Evil (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. is an argument to keep since there is a systemic bias against coverage which is even worse because she is a female academic. 2. Read it again. 3. Is not how academic organizations work. The president is rarely the best in the field; they serve the field as an organizer, or as someone with influence and therefore notable within the field. 4. is an argument against probably 75% or more of the articles on this wiki and not relevant. --Gotanda (talk) 23:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1: So wrong.. Wikipedia is about providing sourced material. It is solely about aggregating information from reliable sources to provide that information on a subject It is not about fixing social issues as seen by its users. If there are little to no useful information on a subject, there is no reason for a page here and one should not exist. 2: "In 2023, Greene will become the president of the Archaeological Institute of America" - Copied from the current version of the article. When did the term "will become" mean "is"? 3: If there claim is as an influential organizer, how is that notable outside of that organization? This is not the wiki for that group and what they feel is notable does not always reflect what is generally seen as notable. Membership at any level in a group is not solely notable. The person has to do something that is properly covered by indepentant sources to a degree that there is sufficient information to write an article. The coverage here (for whatever reasons - not important why it exists or doesn't) is not sufficient to base an article on.
Oh and the standard reply: 4: If something else has not been deleted but falls under the same reasoning does not mean we should keep following that bad example. This discussion is about this topic. " 75% or more of the articles on this wiki" are not in this discussion. Judge a topic on its own merits, not om the failure to address the merits of other topics. Pure Evil (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding one, it is based on sourced information. The sourced information is scarce not because of the subject. You really should consider looking into systemic bias in Wikipedia and understanding its effects. 4. "Interest in the article" is not a criterion. --Gotanda (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


This request is due to close on 16:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
Category