Slatersteven (talk | contribs) |
Slatersteven (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
*'''Delete''' per the nom's thorough [[WP:BEFORE]]. [[User:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:black">'''——'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:black">''SerialNumber''</span>]][[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:#8B0000">54129</span>]] 10:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' per the nom's thorough [[WP:BEFORE]]. [[User:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:black">'''——'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:black">''SerialNumber''</span>]][[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:#8B0000">54129</span>]] 10:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete''' How much of this is sourced to her work? Not notable at this time.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' How much of this is sourced to her work? Not notable at this time.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC) |
||
Note [[https://twitter.com/niais/status/1124138127956643840?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet]], a call to aRMS.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:17, 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)
- 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 - 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) - 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)
- Not that I think that we should be working toward any particular "ideal" proportion of deletion discussions because there are a lot of factors, but maybe we could also equalize your findings by looking more closely at male academic entries and start nominating them if found to have few or no independent sources. That seems better than implying we should reduce our standards for female academics and/or just simply nominate them to AfD less often. Also, being "nominated for deletion" is not the same as "deleted", so you aren't even addressing the outcomes in that small sample size. -- Netoholic @ 04:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. If anything the Donna Strickland case argues that there is a different standard for achievement within the professorate based on gender. The argument, "She's an assistant professor," is not particularly compelling in light of recent experience. I don't have strong opinions on this article in particular, but the comments found here are indicative of a conflation of impartiality with "bias blindness." Applying a universal standard of achievement within the academy is not reflective of inherent gender inequalities. --ElectricBuddha (talk) 04:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know how much we can infer from a single case, but there is actual data that Wikipedia is imposing a double standard of achievement on women. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination argument. FWIW, cannot overemphasize upon the need of religiously abiding by WP:INTEGRITY whilst writing about BLPs. ∯WBGconverse 07:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per the nom's thorough WP:BEFORE. ——SerialNumber54129 10:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete How much of this is sourced to her work? Not notable at this time.Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Note [[1]], a call to aRMS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)