Content deleted Content added
Ritchie333 (talk | contribs) d'uuh |
E.M.Gregory (talk | contribs) we have rules. we have rules for a reason. |
||
Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
:*Please make time to read, or to re-read, [[WP:BASIC]]. The issue here is that coverage in those two local news stories, apart from being local, is neither INDEPENDENT nor SECONDARY.[[User:E.M.Gregory|E.M.Gregory]] ([[User talk:E.M.Gregory|talk]]) 16:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[[User:E.M.Gregory|E.M.Gregory]] ([[User talk:E.M.Gregory|talk]]) 16:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC) |
:*Please make time to read, or to re-read, [[WP:BASIC]]. The issue here is that coverage in those two local news stories, apart from being local, is neither INDEPENDENT nor SECONDARY.[[User:E.M.Gregory|E.M.Gregory]] ([[User talk:E.M.Gregory|talk]]) 16:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[[User:E.M.Gregory|E.M.Gregory]] ([[User talk:E.M.Gregory|talk]]) 16:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC) |
||
* '''Keep''' A quick search for sources shows in-depth obituaries and articles such as [https://www.wpafb.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1778460/the-life-times-and-legacy-of-phyllis-bolds/ here], [https://www.wpafb.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1109595/wright-pattersons-women-in-stem-are-not-hidden-figures/ here], [https://fox45now.com/news/local/three-generations-of-engineers-shine-at-wright-patterson-air-force-base here] and [https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/name/phyllis-bolds-obituary?pid=190744410 here]. Easily enough to write an article, all of these have been published by professional organisations (who don't write about any old person). [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 22:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC) |
* '''Keep''' A quick search for sources shows in-depth obituaries and articles such as [https://www.wpafb.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1778460/the-life-times-and-legacy-of-phyllis-bolds/ here], [https://www.wpafb.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1109595/wright-pattersons-women-in-stem-are-not-hidden-figures/ here], [https://fox45now.com/news/local/three-generations-of-engineers-shine-at-wright-patterson-air-force-base here] and [https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/name/phyllis-bolds-obituary?pid=190744410 here]. Easily enough to write an article, all of these have been published by professional organisations (who don't write about any old person). [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 22:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC) |
||
:*The sources suggested by Ritchie are: |
|||
::*A page on her employer's website [https://www.wpafb.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1778460/the-life-times-and-legacy-of-phyllis-bolds |
|||
::*Another page on her employer's website [https://www.wpafb.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1109595/wright-pattersons-women-in-stem-are-not-hidden-figures/] |
|||
::*The local Fox News story taht appears to be based on a press release by her employer and has been discussed above, and |
|||
::* a legacy.com obit. These are not INDEPENDENT sources.[[User:E.M.Gregory|E.M.Gregory]] ([[User talk:E.M.Gregory|talk]]) 23:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:24, 8 April 2019
Phyllis Bolds
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Phyllis Bolds (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)
Fails WP:GNG, as well as the WP:SOLDIER and WP:NPROF SNGs. Subject had a college degree in physics and subsequently master degrees in computer science and management. She worked for the US Air force for her entire career, and authored a number of technical reports (with very low citation counts - gScholar has them at 1). My WP:BEFORE doesn't bring up much in terms of sourcing. In terms of sourcing in the article: (numbering in relation to this revision)
- ref1 - photo collage by local artist. 262 word summary of career.
- ref2, ref4,ref5 , ref11 - United States Air Force PR mentioning Bolds (either in singular or in the context of her daughter and granddaughter).
- ref3 - local WRGT-TV segment on the Bold family and how 3 generations work at the air base. mainly an interview, so not independent. Local nature is also not significant.
- ref6, ref7, ref8 - technical air force reports authored by the subject. Not independent of the subject, nor is the subject of this article the topic of these reports.
- ref9 -local movie listing for Hidden Figures (in which our subject does not appear AFAICT). The listing describes our subject as a local example for a hidden figure. Not significant, not in depth, and probably not reliable either.
- ref10 - funeral home obit - not independent (family), not significant due to localized nature.
In short - far from WP:SIGCOV.Icewhiz (talk) 08:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC) Icewhiz (talk) 08:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:PROF, WP:SOLDIER, and WP:GNG. The sources justd ont exist, nor do the accomplishments that generate such attention in WP:RSes. Remind page creator, whose face page states: "I use wikipedia to upload the biographies of women, black and minority ethnic and LGBTQ+ scientists who are contributing/ have contributed hugely to science and engineering but haven't had the attention that they deserve... I try and make biography page a day." that we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Of course it is true that women were once denied the opportunity to become scientists. It does not, however, follow that we can RIGHT this GREAT WRONG by creating a series of article about non -notable women who worked in labs.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete as to stand alone article as fails WP:PROF, WP:SOLDIER, and WP:GNG. However, she could be briefly mentioned on Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit bomber article page, if RS cited info that is noteworthy is found. Kierzek (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Passes WP:GNG. Women and black people have historically been passed over in many accounts. Great interest in these people was aroused by the book and film Hidden Figures. Redressing a lack of articles on them is not WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS but countering Wikipedia:Systemic bias, which is the whole purpose of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep She is obviously notable within a certain sphere. Is she notable for Wikipedia? There are not many successful black woman physicists from her era so the bar for inclusion is much lower. Notability criteria are designed to be flexible and subjective (what is "significant" coverage?), we need to keep context in mind - significance unique to this case. Systemic bias exists not only on Wikipedia but in the wider world where we get our sources from - we can do better by being conscious of these biases the lack of coverage and reading a little bit between the lines. I disagree with the noms characterization of many of the sources. -- GreenC 16:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Your arguement runs counter to Wikipedia policy - we do not lower the bar by race/ethnicity. In this case we do not have even a single high quality independent in depth source. With which sources in particular do you disagree with my characterization of, and why? Icewhiz (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- The wording of GNG is designed to be flexible otherwise it would state that each article must have 5 sources to national-level newspapers. We don't set bars like that, we keep it flexible for the context in each case. I've explained why I think this article is acceptable for the wording of GNG, what the context is and why it matters. You are free to disagree with that opinion, but that doesn't mean it runs counter to policy (GNG is a guideline anyway). -- GreenC 20:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Very few women and even fewer African-American women were in the American Air Force Research Laboratory in the 1950s. Her bio has been covered by independent reliable sources (including the the air base, lab and local news). Jesswade88 (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- The airbase and air force lab - her employer - are not independent (nor subject to editorial oversight - this is essentially a PR release). A local news item (on her family - not just her - and mainly a short interview) is not significant coverage. Icewhiz (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- A PR release for what purpose? To 'promote' a former employee who is dead? Jesswade88 (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- I do not concur with the characterisation of the the Dayton Daily News, which is notable enough to warrant its own Wikipedia article and serves a metropolitan area of nearly 800,000 people as being a local newspaper. [1] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- DDN is a local news source - next to the airbase - and it is an interview with Bolds and her family - so not independent. Why is the Air Force releasing PR on this? Perhaps to promote the image of the air force. Or perhaps due to Bolds' family (daughter and granddaughter) who works at the same airbase (who also appear in these PR pieces). And all told - it isn't all that many PR pieces.Icewhiz (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure where you got the idea that a daily newspaper covering a major city is somehow not independent secondary coverage; but you are mistaken. GMGtalk 21:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Interviews are generally not independent of the subjects of the interview, and generally are not counted towards notability. www.wpafb.af.mil and afresearchlab.com are quite obviously not independent as well. Icewhiz (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- A news story in which they "quote people" is not the same thing as citing the transcript of an interview. Sources from the US government may not be the gold standard on topics relating to the US government, but we certainly do not in practice treat them the same as press releases by businesses. If you doubt that, then I can get you a good deal on a few thousand bios on US members of Congress machine generated from their official congressional bios. Beyond that, there is exactly zero in policy that devalues the use of local sources in biographies, in as much as a daily paper in a major city counts as a local source. GMGtalk 22:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Interviews are generally not independent of the subjects of the interview, and generally are not counted towards notability. www.wpafb.af.mil and afresearchlab.com are quite obviously not independent as well. Icewhiz (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure where you got the idea that a daily newspaper covering a major city is somehow not independent secondary coverage; but you are mistaken. GMGtalk 21:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- DDN is a local news source - next to the airbase - and it is an interview with Bolds and her family - so not independent. Why is the Air Force releasing PR on this? Perhaps to promote the image of the air force. Or perhaps due to Bolds' family (daughter and granddaughter) who works at the same airbase (who also appear in these PR pieces). And all told - it isn't all that many PR pieces.Icewhiz (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- I do not concur with the characterisation of the the Dayton Daily News, which is notable enough to warrant its own Wikipedia article and serves a metropolitan area of nearly 800,000 people as being a local newspaper. [1] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- A PR release for what purpose? To 'promote' a former employee who is dead? Jesswade88 (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- The airbase and air force lab - her employer - are not independent (nor subject to editorial oversight - this is essentially a PR release). A local news item (on her family - not just her - and mainly a short interview) is not significant coverage. Icewhiz (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- The Dayton newspaper article is not only local, it was written by the "public affairs" officer of Bold's employer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
*Keep Passes WP:GNG. --Nonmodernist (talk) 17:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC) See my update below.
- Keep The article passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - "passes GNG" !votes should be discounted unless !voters demonstrate that multiple, in-depth, reliable, independent sources actually exist. So far - we have a couple of local news items - which is far from the bar we generally apply for GNG. Icewhiz (talk) 08:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree GNG-based !votes should be discounted. What should be discounted is the nom lobbying the closer. -- GreenC 15:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- Absent a rationale - in this case actually producing 3-4 in-depth independent sources - this is WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE/WP:VAGUEWAVE/WP:SOURCESEXIST - which is only a tad better than some WP:ILIKEIT !votes here. People asserting GNG - should pony up and present sources actually establishing it. Icewhiz (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree GNG-based !votes should be discounted. What should be discounted is the nom lobbying the closer. -- GreenC 15:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I have beaten the bushes looking for SIGCOV. He name brings up nothing except a single press release in a Proquest new archive search.
Nothing at all in a gBooks search [2].The "best" source now on the page is an article in the Dayton paper written by the public affairs officer of her employer. The rest are PRIMARY, or unusable stuff like an obit published by the funeral parlor. I am always open to changing my opinion at AfD - when someone brings sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- You misspelled her name; here is the gBooks search[3]. It has some of her technical publication and work at conferences. StrayBolt (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- My error. Even with the correct spelling, that publication record is far too meager to meet WP:PROF. and note that the proquest news search was spelled correctly. We need WP:SIGCOV, and nobody has found it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- Little cited - miles away from meeting WP:NPROF(1) - a few scattered (less than 10 all told) citations to very technical and low-level documents. In terms of GNG - we have USAF PR - and not all that much of it. Icewhiz (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- You misspelled her name; here is the gBooks search[3]. It has some of her technical publication and work at conferences. StrayBolt (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Passes WP:GNG. Article appears to have been updated with more independent reliable sources--see especially news story by Adam Aaro (an Emmy-award winning journo) and the clipping from Dayton Daily News. Bolds's inclusion as a subject in the Visual Voices exhibit ["These artists have researched prominent African-American’s (living or deceased) who have made a mark in their field and are role models for the community."] also proves notability. GNG does not list a minimum number of required sources; furthermore, WP:NEXIST says "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." Finally, what proof is there that the technical reports she authored are "low-level"? Her work on aircraft dynamics relative to shock and airplane vibration, especially as it relates to the B-2 Stealth Bomber, seem pretty important to me. --Nonmodernist (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- the Adam Aaron story ran on the LOCAL network affiliate, and the ending ("For even more about this story, you can read the article written up by Wright-Patterson Air Force Base "here." And for more information about the base's educational outreach office which is a resource for K-12 STEM education throughout the Air Force and the Department of Defense, you can click "here.") certainly gives the appearance of having been part of a PR campaign by Bolds' employer. The article in the Dayton paper was actually written by the ppublic afairs dept. of Bold's employer and the Dayton art exhibit are also local.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- E.M.Gregory, can you point me to where GNG rules out local news sources as establishing notability? What is the threshold for a "local" paper? What size locality must a newspaper serve for it be considered reliable? Is the New York Times ruled out as a source about New Yorkers because it is the local NYC paper? Ditto, is the Washington Post ruled out as a source of info on anyone living in D.C.? --Nonmodernist (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, when such material runs in the "Metro," "Local" or "Regional" editions of those papers. Although, in Bolds' case, it is not even clear that the article on local TV is INDEPENDENT; the article in the Dayton paper is clearly written by her employer. I am genuinely willing to be persuaded here. I have personally created dozens or pages about notable women. But my searches are not finding INDEPENDENT, SIGCOV. And no else has found coverage that passes WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- The issue here is not who wrote the article - often we have no byline to tell us - but that there was editorial oversight in selecting the article as worthy of publication, and in checking its veracity, which is what we mean by an independent, reliable source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- Was there? I don't see any substantial discussing on DDN in RSN, I think it is rather poor form for a newspaper to run a piece written by a PR person (military, government, or commercial) - it is a rather strong indication that the DDN is falling in form (structural changes in past decade) - and that it is not able to fund its own reporter to chew and writeup the PR release under their own byline. Sources reprinting or accepting PR submissions (not clearly marked as promotional content) - is an indication of low quality. Regardless - even if DDN were reliable, this is not independent - the airbase PR person, as Bolds herself were she to write about herself on DDN, are not independent of Bolds.Icewhiz (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- E.M.Gregory, can you point me to where GNG rules out local news sources as establishing notability? What is the threshold for a "local" paper? What size locality must a newspaper serve for it be considered reliable? Is the New York Times ruled out as a source about New Yorkers because it is the local NYC paper? Ditto, is the Washington Post ruled out as a source of info on anyone living in D.C.? --Nonmodernist (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep As was already pointed out, the farce of local sources has nothing to do with notability with regard to biographies, and for better or worse, US government publications are regularly treated as reliable sources. There's enough to write an article with, and that's the only part of GNG that matters, and the only part of GNG that we should be measuring. GNG is not a measure of importance; it's a measure of whether a policy compliant article can be written. GMGtalk 00:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note that only 2 news articles about Bolds have been found; both are LOCAL one is certainly not INDEPENDENT and the other appears not to be INDEPENDENT. And, no, I do not consider Wikipedia's standards on Biographies to be a "farce."E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
-
- "local" in this context, refers to the fact that biographies where sourcing is entirely local are rarely - if ever - deemed notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Please make time to read, or to re-read, WP:BASIC. The issue here is that coverage in those two local news stories, apart from being local, is neither INDEPENDENT nor SECONDARY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep A quick search for sources shows in-depth obituaries and articles such as here, here, here and here. Easily enough to write an article, all of these have been published by professional organisations (who don't write about any old person). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- The sources suggested by Ritchie are:
- A page on her employer's website [https://www.wpafb.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1778460/the-life-times-and-legacy-of-phyllis-bolds
- Another page on her employer's website [4]
- The local Fox News story taht appears to be based on a press release by her employer and has been discussed above, and
- a legacy.com obit. These are not INDEPENDENT sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)