The result was keep. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 05:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
WP:BLP of an academic, not
properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for academics. As always, academics are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show sourcing that properly verifies that they meet certain specific criteria for inclusion -- but this has no footnotes at all, and just contextlessly lists a couple of
primary sources (i.e. her own faculty profiles on the
self-published websites of her own employers and a directory entry) that aren't support for notability.
This was, further, created in draftspace by a brand new user and then immediately moved into mainspace by the same user without
WP:AFC review practically the moment they had accumulated 10 edits for the purposes of gaining autoconfirmed privileges -- which is not the proper process for article creation either.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have any third-party sourcing besides her own staff profiles from directly affiliated entities.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
so it meets notability requirements" exhibits a misunderstanding of what notability means. It is not articles that meet notability requirements, it is their subjects. If the subject is notable, she is notable regardless of the state of the article. If she is not, she is not. Since we're at AfD, we should decide the issue. Draftifying, after reaching AfD, has the appearance of being a cowardly way of saying "let's hope the author goes away so we can delete it in another 6 months without discussion". Draftifying can sometimes be useful in the situation where we have a clearly-notable subject and a clearly-unready article about them, but that's not the case here. It is not article improvement that we need – the article is in ok shape for what its sources provide – but a determination of whether the subject actually is notable or not. — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 05:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
WP:BLP of an academic, not
properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for academics. As always, academics are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show sourcing that properly verifies that they meet certain specific criteria for inclusion -- but this has no footnotes at all, and just contextlessly lists a couple of
primary sources (i.e. her own faculty profiles on the
self-published websites of her own employers and a directory entry) that aren't support for notability.
This was, further, created in draftspace by a brand new user and then immediately moved into mainspace by the same user without
WP:AFC review practically the moment they had accumulated 10 edits for the purposes of gaining autoconfirmed privileges -- which is not the proper process for article creation either.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have any third-party sourcing besides her own staff profiles from directly affiliated entities.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
so it meets notability requirements" exhibits a misunderstanding of what notability means. It is not articles that meet notability requirements, it is their subjects. If the subject is notable, she is notable regardless of the state of the article. If she is not, she is not. Since we're at AfD, we should decide the issue. Draftifying, after reaching AfD, has the appearance of being a cowardly way of saying "let's hope the author goes away so we can delete it in another 6 months without discussion". Draftifying can sometimes be useful in the situation where we have a clearly-notable subject and a clearly-unready article about them, but that's not the case here. It is not article improvement that we need – the article is in ok shape for what its sources provide – but a determination of whether the subject actually is notable or not. — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)