(Redirected from
Wikipedia:AFD/SCI)
 | Points of interest related to
Science on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do |
| Points of interest related to
Physics on Wikipedia: History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Cleanup – Stubs – To-do |
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Science. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
- Adding a new AfD discussion
- Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at
WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at
WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
- Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Science|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove other discussions ( prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Science. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{ transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{ prodded}} will suffice.
- Further information
- For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:| watch |
AfDs for this article:
- Athanasios Tsakalidis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article reads as a resume, or a professor bio than that of an encyclopedic article. I really question
WP:GNG and
WP:SIGCOV as there just aren't very many sources coming up for him. I am also rather leery that 70% of the 10 references currently existing on the page are of works he (co)wrote. I see that there was a split decision on the AFD back in 2006 for this page, and the page does not seem to have improved in quality since then. Longer, yes, but quality... hmm. We seem to still be in the same state of, and I'll quote Melaen from that AFD here, "Looks very unpolished, could be cleaned up extensively. Seems NN, but I could be wrong."
. I'm all for keeping articles of scientists, but basic criteria such as GNG must be met, and I'm just not seeing potential at this time. Opening up this discussion in the hopes I am wrong, and IF notability could be met, to shine some light on a page that needs a real overhaul. Currently though my vote is Delete.
Zinnober9 (
talk)
05:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Science, Computing, and Greece. Zinnober9 ( talk) 05:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 23:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- delete There is no notability. I've looked at the Greek-language sources and there's nothing beyond the trivial there either. An academic like millions of others. D.S. Lioness ( talk) 17:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment? Millions? How did you arrive at that figure? Nom seems to be unaware that
WP:Prof may also be met. Subject has high GS citations, but in a very high cited field. Not sure.
Xxanthippe (
talk)
00:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC).
- When I say there are millions of other academics, I mean that there's nothing special about his career that makes it stand out. If you could take a moment to clarify your position, it would be much appreciated. Now you're disrupting the consensus process just to disrupt it. D.S. Lioness ( talk) 17:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- It would be helpful to other editors if you were more precise in your use of language so that there is no need for further explanation. Xxanthippe ( talk) 03:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC).
- Week keep There's a decent case for a WP:PROF#C1 by way of a sufficiently strong citation profile. (Computer science is a comparatively high-citation field, but a fair amount of his publication record is from decades ago, meaning that it dates to an era when citation rates were lower overall and it has had more time to be indirectly influential.) However, there doesn't seem to be much to say. After a round of cleanup, the article doesn't besmirch the dignity of the encyclopedia with egregious promotionalism, but it doesn't appear that removing the article would leave a critical gap in our coverage of computer science. Overall, keeping it seems justifiable but not obligatory. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep as above. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC).
- Weak delete. The only case seems to be WP:PROF#C1 and the closer one looks the less impressive the record seems to be. His early work was in data structures (one of my primary areas of research); among his higher-cited publications he has coauthorship on a textbook by the much more notable Kurt Mehlhorn and one paper on the order-maintenance problem which is neither the first word on the subject (see Dietz STOC 1982) nor the last. It's hard to see much pattern in his more recent works except for a series of papers on using machine learning techniques in recruitment; compared to data structures, machine learning is a much higher citation subfield and his citation numbers in this area are ok but nothing special. He doesn't appear to have published at all since 2021. And although I suspect that the basic career milestones in the article could be sourced, almost none of it actually is adequately sourced. XOR'easter already removed a large chunk of "puffery, glurge, and inline external URLs" and I removed more, but it would need to be stubbed down much more if kept. — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Society of Physicists of Macedonia ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I found no notability per WP:ORG. SL93 ( talk) 22:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and North Macedonia. SL93 ( talk) 22:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep 75+ y.o. professional organizations. Sources are likely in Macedonian (using Cyrillic alphabet) and Greek (using Greek alphabet), so not surprising that they can't be found in a summary google search. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 07:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep for same reason as above. Searching on the Cyrillic I find some pages, although I am relying on Chrome translate. It does seem to be an established organization that has been around for a significant time, no reason to delete. Ldm1954 ( talk) 08:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree that there is automatically no reason to delete because sources might exist. On top of that, the year of establishment is currently unverified which is a core Wikipedia policy.
SL93 (
talk)
19:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- N.B., I did find sources, it was not "might".
Ldm1954 (
talk)
22:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Means the same thing to me as you haven't shared them. I see this being a keep so I guess it doesn't matter.. SL93 ( talk) 22:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- N.B., I did find sources, it was not "might".
Ldm1954 (
talk)
22:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree that there is automatically no reason to delete because sources might exist. On top of that, the year of establishment is currently unverified which is a core Wikipedia policy.
SL93 (
talk)
19:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion around the coverage provided to this organization by known existing sources would be helpful in attaining a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)- Comment, as more discussion was requested. Being specific
here (Google search on the cyrillic) turns up a decent number of hits. However, I cannot trust the Google translate enough. What we need is someone who does, for instance (doing a ping)
EdwardKaravakis who may know others. I am posting to a Macedonian project noticeboard as well.
Ldm1954 (
talk)
02:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- hm I do not know Cyrillic, never heard of this society before and I am pretty sure that this should be of Northern Macedonia instead.. EdwardKaravakis ( talk) 03:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thelma Rodgers ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:BIO. 2 of the 4 sources are dead. out of the other sources, this one is just a 1 line mention and not WP:SIGCOV. No real article links to this. Being the first woman to spend time at a base is not a claim for notablity. Google news yielded nothing. LibStar ( talk) 04:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Science, Antarctica, and New Zealand. LibStar ( talk) 04:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. No indication of passing GNG. DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 06:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep or merge.
This has an enormous amount of coverage: probably >10 paragraphs. Full paragraph in
this article. This does pass GNG. Being the first woman to overwinter at a base when it took an effort, and there is significant coverage of the experiences is a claim for notability. That said given she only operated the equipment and wasn't a scientist with her own discoveries to cover it may be more appropriate to put in a section in
Scott Base.
Mrfoogles (
talk)
08:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Probably have to merge, given the limited coverage, but I would argue there is notability and a reasonable claim to GNG Mrfoogles ( talk) 08:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: there is substantial coverage in the Bradshaw source, and a geographical feature Rodgers Point bears her name: Wikipedia should be able to answer the question "Who was that Rodgers?", and the current article does so nicely. Pam D 09:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge I've had a look what The Press has on offer and found that she was secretary of the Canterbury Caving Club soon after it was founded, and that it was not until 1988 that the second New Zealand woman spent a winter on the ice. The article in the Antarctic Magazine is very decent, but without at least a second article of substance, there isn't a good reason to keep this article. Merging seems appropriate. Schwede 66 09:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Notability is clearly stated in lede and documented in Antarctic Magazine. There are two other sources that seem to be reliable secondary sources but they're based in New Zealand so I'm not familiar with them (
Newshub and
The Spinoff). Finally, Rodgers was born before 1950 and it's more difficult to find reliable secondary sources for women from this time because they were less likely to be written about.
Nnev66 (
talk)
18:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Being born before 1950 is not an excuse for lack of sources.
LibStar (
talk)
23:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- There are at least three sources and I found a couple of others but all are noting the same milestone, that Rodgers was the first New Zealand woman scientist to winter over in Antarctica. Is the issue here that this isn't notable enough or there are not enough sources discussing this milestone in depth? There might have been more in depth sources if she had been born later, which I believe is why
WikiProject Women's History makes that distinction.
Nnev66 (
talk)
01:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- If she was born in 1920 I could understand. "that Rodgers was the first New Zealand woman scientist to winter over in Antarctica" is in itself not a claim for notability. LibStar ( talk) 01:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- There are at least three sources and I found a couple of others but all are noting the same milestone, that Rodgers was the first New Zealand woman scientist to winter over in Antarctica. Is the issue here that this isn't notable enough or there are not enough sources discussing this milestone in depth? There might have been more in depth sources if she had been born later, which I believe is why
WikiProject Women's History makes that distinction.
Nnev66 (
talk)
01:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've thought more about this and appreciate points on all sides. If Rodgers had wintered-over in 1989 this would not be notable. To me she's notable because she broke the glass ceiling. She pushed on in the face of obstacles and became the first woman to do this. I've tried to add more details to the article to draw this out. I wish there was more in-depth coverage but there are four sources that appear to be reliable. Note in the past couple of months I've been monitoring AfD and AfC women scientist pages and I try to improve them if I think there's notability. It's more difficult to follow the breadcrumbs for those born earlier in the 20th century - just not as much is written about them. Nnev66 ( talk) 00:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Being born before 1950 is not an excuse for lack of sources.
LibStar (
talk)
23:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, although a weak keep. I agree that first women to winter-over doesn't seem super notable, but there is one comprehensive source with good biographical info and she is regularly mentioned in reliable secondary sources (together, meeting
WP:BASIC). Plus, there's the fact of a geographical feature and one of the Scott Base labs being named after her. All up, I think there's enough.
Chocmilk03 (
talk)
08:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Noting that there's a paragraph on her in Call of the Ice, which I've just added as a source to the article. It doesn't add very much to what's already in the article, though, apart from that she'd already been in summer '76/77 (which makes sense, presumably you'd do that before going for winter). Chocmilk03 ( talk) 02:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge She's the first woman to winter-over specifically at Scott Base. Others came before her in Antarctica more generally; there are also many
thousands of named Antarctic landforms, so I'm not convinced this is a basis for notability for a standalone article.
Reywas92
Talk
13:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think she's more the first New Zealand woman to over-winter: Scott Base being the NZ Arctic base makes it almost the same thing but "first NZ woman" has a greater significance. Pam D 15:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Falls short of GNG. Not really sure what can be merged to Scott Base in an encyclopaedic fashion. If someone can show a draft/example feel free to ping me and I'll reconsider. Also she isn't a scientist, but that isn't an issue if the article is merged/deleted. Traumnovelle ( talk) 08:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge. I think a good case has already been made by others that this BLP doesn't have significant standalone notability and what is being used to assert notability is more superficial than it appears. I would be edging towards delete with that in mind, but merge seems like a really good option here in terms of
WP:CONSENSUS and weighting policy/guideline since content on Rodgers is so closely tied to the location based on
this article. It's a bit of case of
WP:BLP1E otherwise, so the paragraph in that source would be the most I'd see moving over there (and probably less).
KoA (
talk)
17:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment after relisting. Just reviewed this after the two relistings below. I think this one is still pretty clearly in the merge category from a WP:PAG perspective, especially since a keep would run into issues with WP:BLP1E policy. At the least, keep does not seem like a valid option here, and if this person ever becomes notable for more that would justify an article, it can easily be unmerged. Until then, there's always going to be policy tensions with this subject, KoA ( talk) 15:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep, seems to be a good amount of coverage for WP:GNG.David Palmer// cloventt ( talk) 04:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, it appears to be keep or merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 10:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep or maybe Merge: it's a borderline case, but I think there's enough WP:SIGCOV to keep the content, if not to have a standalone article. — Alien333 ( what I did & why I did it wrong) 14:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: Disambiguate
(Redirected from
Wikipedia:AFD/SCI)
| Points of interest related to
Science on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do |
| Points of interest related to
Physics on Wikipedia: History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Cleanup – Stubs – To-do |
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Science. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
- Adding a new AfD discussion
- Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at
WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at
WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
- Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Science|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove other discussions ( prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Science. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{ transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{ prodded}} will suffice.
- Further information
- For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:| watch |
AfDs for this article:
- Athanasios Tsakalidis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article reads as a resume, or a professor bio than that of an encyclopedic article. I really question
WP:GNG and
WP:SIGCOV as there just aren't very many sources coming up for him. I am also rather leery that 70% of the 10 references currently existing on the page are of works he (co)wrote. I see that there was a split decision on the AFD back in 2006 for this page, and the page does not seem to have improved in quality since then. Longer, yes, but quality... hmm. We seem to still be in the same state of, and I'll quote Melaen from that AFD here, "Looks very unpolished, could be cleaned up extensively. Seems NN, but I could be wrong."
. I'm all for keeping articles of scientists, but basic criteria such as GNG must be met, and I'm just not seeing potential at this time. Opening up this discussion in the hopes I am wrong, and IF notability could be met, to shine some light on a page that needs a real overhaul. Currently though my vote is Delete.
Zinnober9 (
talk)
05:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Science, Computing, and Greece. Zinnober9 ( talk) 05:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 23:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- delete There is no notability. I've looked at the Greek-language sources and there's nothing beyond the trivial there either. An academic like millions of others. D.S. Lioness ( talk) 17:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment? Millions? How did you arrive at that figure? Nom seems to be unaware that
WP:Prof may also be met. Subject has high GS citations, but in a very high cited field. Not sure.
Xxanthippe (
talk)
00:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC).
- When I say there are millions of other academics, I mean that there's nothing special about his career that makes it stand out. If you could take a moment to clarify your position, it would be much appreciated. Now you're disrupting the consensus process just to disrupt it. D.S. Lioness ( talk) 17:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- It would be helpful to other editors if you were more precise in your use of language so that there is no need for further explanation. Xxanthippe ( talk) 03:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC).
- Week keep There's a decent case for a WP:PROF#C1 by way of a sufficiently strong citation profile. (Computer science is a comparatively high-citation field, but a fair amount of his publication record is from decades ago, meaning that it dates to an era when citation rates were lower overall and it has had more time to be indirectly influential.) However, there doesn't seem to be much to say. After a round of cleanup, the article doesn't besmirch the dignity of the encyclopedia with egregious promotionalism, but it doesn't appear that removing the article would leave a critical gap in our coverage of computer science. Overall, keeping it seems justifiable but not obligatory. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep as above. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC).
- Weak delete. The only case seems to be WP:PROF#C1 and the closer one looks the less impressive the record seems to be. His early work was in data structures (one of my primary areas of research); among his higher-cited publications he has coauthorship on a textbook by the much more notable Kurt Mehlhorn and one paper on the order-maintenance problem which is neither the first word on the subject (see Dietz STOC 1982) nor the last. It's hard to see much pattern in his more recent works except for a series of papers on using machine learning techniques in recruitment; compared to data structures, machine learning is a much higher citation subfield and his citation numbers in this area are ok but nothing special. He doesn't appear to have published at all since 2021. And although I suspect that the basic career milestones in the article could be sourced, almost none of it actually is adequately sourced. XOR'easter already removed a large chunk of "puffery, glurge, and inline external URLs" and I removed more, but it would need to be stubbed down much more if kept. — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Society of Physicists of Macedonia ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I found no notability per WP:ORG. SL93 ( talk) 22:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and North Macedonia. SL93 ( talk) 22:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep 75+ y.o. professional organizations. Sources are likely in Macedonian (using Cyrillic alphabet) and Greek (using Greek alphabet), so not surprising that they can't be found in a summary google search. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 07:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep for same reason as above. Searching on the Cyrillic I find some pages, although I am relying on Chrome translate. It does seem to be an established organization that has been around for a significant time, no reason to delete. Ldm1954 ( talk) 08:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree that there is automatically no reason to delete because sources might exist. On top of that, the year of establishment is currently unverified which is a core Wikipedia policy.
SL93 (
talk)
19:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- N.B., I did find sources, it was not "might".
Ldm1954 (
talk)
22:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Means the same thing to me as you haven't shared them. I see this being a keep so I guess it doesn't matter.. SL93 ( talk) 22:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- N.B., I did find sources, it was not "might".
Ldm1954 (
talk)
22:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree that there is automatically no reason to delete because sources might exist. On top of that, the year of establishment is currently unverified which is a core Wikipedia policy.
SL93 (
talk)
19:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion around the coverage provided to this organization by known existing sources would be helpful in attaining a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)- Comment, as more discussion was requested. Being specific
here (Google search on the cyrillic) turns up a decent number of hits. However, I cannot trust the Google translate enough. What we need is someone who does, for instance (doing a ping)
EdwardKaravakis who may know others. I am posting to a Macedonian project noticeboard as well.
Ldm1954 (
talk)
02:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- hm I do not know Cyrillic, never heard of this society before and I am pretty sure that this should be of Northern Macedonia instead.. EdwardKaravakis ( talk) 03:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thelma Rodgers ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:BIO. 2 of the 4 sources are dead. out of the other sources, this one is just a 1 line mention and not WP:SIGCOV. No real article links to this. Being the first woman to spend time at a base is not a claim for notablity. Google news yielded nothing. LibStar ( talk) 04:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Science, Antarctica, and New Zealand. LibStar ( talk) 04:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. No indication of passing GNG. DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 06:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep or merge.
This has an enormous amount of coverage: probably >10 paragraphs. Full paragraph in
this article. This does pass GNG. Being the first woman to overwinter at a base when it took an effort, and there is significant coverage of the experiences is a claim for notability. That said given she only operated the equipment and wasn't a scientist with her own discoveries to cover it may be more appropriate to put in a section in
Scott Base.
Mrfoogles (
talk)
08:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Probably have to merge, given the limited coverage, but I would argue there is notability and a reasonable claim to GNG Mrfoogles ( talk) 08:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: there is substantial coverage in the Bradshaw source, and a geographical feature Rodgers Point bears her name: Wikipedia should be able to answer the question "Who was that Rodgers?", and the current article does so nicely. Pam D 09:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge I've had a look what The Press has on offer and found that she was secretary of the Canterbury Caving Club soon after it was founded, and that it was not until 1988 that the second New Zealand woman spent a winter on the ice. The article in the Antarctic Magazine is very decent, but without at least a second article of substance, there isn't a good reason to keep this article. Merging seems appropriate. Schwede 66 09:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Notability is clearly stated in lede and documented in Antarctic Magazine. There are two other sources that seem to be reliable secondary sources but they're based in New Zealand so I'm not familiar with them (
Newshub and
The Spinoff). Finally, Rodgers was born before 1950 and it's more difficult to find reliable secondary sources for women from this time because they were less likely to be written about.
Nnev66 (
talk)
18:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Being born before 1950 is not an excuse for lack of sources.
LibStar (
talk)
23:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- There are at least three sources and I found a couple of others but all are noting the same milestone, that Rodgers was the first New Zealand woman scientist to winter over in Antarctica. Is the issue here that this isn't notable enough or there are not enough sources discussing this milestone in depth? There might have been more in depth sources if she had been born later, which I believe is why
WikiProject Women's History makes that distinction.
Nnev66 (
talk)
01:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- If she was born in 1920 I could understand. "that Rodgers was the first New Zealand woman scientist to winter over in Antarctica" is in itself not a claim for notability. LibStar ( talk) 01:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- There are at least three sources and I found a couple of others but all are noting the same milestone, that Rodgers was the first New Zealand woman scientist to winter over in Antarctica. Is the issue here that this isn't notable enough or there are not enough sources discussing this milestone in depth? There might have been more in depth sources if she had been born later, which I believe is why
WikiProject Women's History makes that distinction.
Nnev66 (
talk)
01:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've thought more about this and appreciate points on all sides. If Rodgers had wintered-over in 1989 this would not be notable. To me she's notable because she broke the glass ceiling. She pushed on in the face of obstacles and became the first woman to do this. I've tried to add more details to the article to draw this out. I wish there was more in-depth coverage but there are four sources that appear to be reliable. Note in the past couple of months I've been monitoring AfD and AfC women scientist pages and I try to improve them if I think there's notability. It's more difficult to follow the breadcrumbs for those born earlier in the 20th century - just not as much is written about them. Nnev66 ( talk) 00:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Being born before 1950 is not an excuse for lack of sources.
LibStar (
talk)
23:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, although a weak keep. I agree that first women to winter-over doesn't seem super notable, but there is one comprehensive source with good biographical info and she is regularly mentioned in reliable secondary sources (together, meeting
WP:BASIC). Plus, there's the fact of a geographical feature and one of the Scott Base labs being named after her. All up, I think there's enough.
Chocmilk03 (
talk)
08:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Noting that there's a paragraph on her in Call of the Ice, which I've just added as a source to the article. It doesn't add very much to what's already in the article, though, apart from that she'd already been in summer '76/77 (which makes sense, presumably you'd do that before going for winter). Chocmilk03 ( talk) 02:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge She's the first woman to winter-over specifically at Scott Base. Others came before her in Antarctica more generally; there are also many
thousands of named Antarctic landforms, so I'm not convinced this is a basis for notability for a standalone article.
Reywas92
Talk
13:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think she's more the first New Zealand woman to over-winter: Scott Base being the NZ Arctic base makes it almost the same thing but "first NZ woman" has a greater significance. Pam D 15:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Falls short of GNG. Not really sure what can be merged to Scott Base in an encyclopaedic fashion. If someone can show a draft/example feel free to ping me and I'll reconsider. Also she isn't a scientist, but that isn't an issue if the article is merged/deleted. Traumnovelle ( talk) 08:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge. I think a good case has already been made by others that this BLP doesn't have significant standalone notability and what is being used to assert notability is more superficial than it appears. I would be edging towards delete with that in mind, but merge seems like a really good option here in terms of
WP:CONSENSUS and weighting policy/guideline since content on Rodgers is so closely tied to the location based on
this article. It's a bit of case of
WP:BLP1E otherwise, so the paragraph in that source would be the most I'd see moving over there (and probably less).
KoA (
talk)
17:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment after relisting. Just reviewed this after the two relistings below. I think this one is still pretty clearly in the merge category from a WP:PAG perspective, especially since a keep would run into issues with WP:BLP1E policy. At the least, keep does not seem like a valid option here, and if this person ever becomes notable for more that would justify an article, it can easily be unmerged. Until then, there's always going to be policy tensions with this subject, KoA ( talk) 15:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep, seems to be a good amount of coverage for WP:GNG.David Palmer// cloventt ( talk) 04:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, it appears to be keep or merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 10:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep or maybe Merge: it's a borderline case, but I think there's enough WP:SIGCOV to keep the content, if not to have a standalone article. — Alien333 ( what I did & why I did it wrong) 14:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: Disambiguate