David Eppstein (talk | contribs) comment |
|||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
*'''Delete''' per nomination (which is a very thorough piece of work - well done, {{u|Natureium}}). As much as I support having more articles about scientists here, I can't see how she comes close to satisfying any relevant notability criteria.--[[User:Gronk Oz|Gronk Oz]] ([[User talk:Gronk Oz|talk]]) 03:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' per nomination (which is a very thorough piece of work - well done, {{u|Natureium}}). As much as I support having more articles about scientists here, I can't see how she comes close to satisfying any relevant notability criteria.--[[User:Gronk Oz|Gronk Oz]] ([[User talk:Gronk Oz|talk]]) 03:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete'''. [[WP:TOOSOON]]. Doesn't pass PROF nor GNG.[[User:Icewhiz|Icewhiz]] ([[User talk:Icewhiz|talk]]) 04:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC) |
*'''Delete'''. [[WP:TOOSOON]]. Doesn't pass PROF nor GNG.[[User:Icewhiz|Icewhiz]] ([[User talk:Icewhiz|talk]]) 04:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment'''. Did you know that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANotability&type=revision&diff=894769618&oldid=894764961 women academics are twice as likely to be nominated for deletion as you would expect from the proportion of women among Wikipedia biographies?] My strong impression is that, regardless of the fairness of the resulting discussions, this extra scrutiny that biographies of women face leads to a disproportionate outcome. Although this article itself looks hard to defend, and the nominator has also been active in creating biographies of women, its nomination here is a direct result of a discussion at ANI related to the creation of articles about women, and therefore its nomination here is a direct result of its subject being female. Such targeted deletion of articles on female academics produces very bad optics for Wikipedia, already known for being hostile to women. Now that we have a nomination we should address the notability of the subject honestly and without bias, but there are a lot of other less-fraught topics that the people involved could more constructively spend their efforts on in future nominations. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 04:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:02, 3 May 2019
Sarah Tuttle
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Sarah Tuttle (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 pass NPROF or GNG. She's an assistant professor, her h-index is 13, and she hasn't won any major awards. From what I can tell, Tuttle was appointed as the lead for the Hobby–Eberly Telescope's VIRUS detector.
is incorrect. One source linked to that lists her as a "former co-PI" under a PI and alongside two other co-PIs. The other is her describing what she's going to talk about when she gave a seminar (as is very common in academia), but doesn't say anything about her being a lead of this project or what her role was at all. The next claim, She is leading a spectrography project for the Apache Point Observatory.
is very vague, ("a" spectrography project?) and is sourced to an interview. Her being a guest on a podcast while a graduate student is not at all notable. And the final claim Tuttle contributed to American Astronomical Society workshops and supported new guidelines to build a more diverse and inclusive environment
is cited to two things that she herself wrote. Natureium (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - core policy Wikipedia:Verifiability#Notability states:
If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
The article does not contain (and I could not find) any independent sources... let alone enough to satisfy PROF or any other more general notability guideline. -- Netoholic @ 01:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 02:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. I can find multiple independent sources on GS, but they are not enough to satisfy WP:Prof#C1 in this highly cited field WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC).
- Delete per nomination (which is a very thorough piece of work - well done, Natureium). As much as I support having more articles about scientists here, I can't see how she comes close to satisfying any relevant notability criteria.--Gronk Oz (talk) 03:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. WP:TOOSOON. Doesn't pass PROF nor GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 04:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. Did you know that women academics are twice as likely to be nominated for deletion as you would expect from the proportion of women among Wikipedia biographies? My strong impression is that, regardless of the fairness of the resulting discussions, this extra scrutiny that biographies of women face leads to a disproportionate outcome. Although this article itself looks hard to defend, and the nominator has also been active in creating biographies of women, its nomination here is a direct result of a discussion at ANI related to the creation of articles about women, and therefore its nomination here is a direct result of its subject being female. Such targeted deletion of articles on female academics produces very bad optics for Wikipedia, already known for being hostile to women. Now that we have a nomination we should address the notability of the subject honestly and without bias, but there are a lot of other less-fraught topics that the people involved could more constructively spend their efforts on in future nominations. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)