Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Styring

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I have boldly deleted the article as entirely promotional according to speedy criterion G11, just as i would had I seen it outside this AfD. . It amounts sourcing an article with a persons attempts to raise money; that is using the encyclopedia for promotion. WP:NOT supersedes the GNG, but the alternative would have been to remove the promotional material, and that would have included the sources. I will AGF in writing the article, but instead of viewing it as a thoughtless attempt to seize on whatever references might be available, it could alternatively be seen as a cynical attempt to exploit our policies. I'm amazed that anyone would defend this article--such a defense is a concentration on the wording of rules without taking into accoount our purposes. WP:N is not a loophole. DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

=[[Alison Styring]]=

:{{la|Alison Styring}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Alison Styring}})

I do not see anything in the article that would make it notable according to wiki guidelines Snowman (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete. Cites in GS are 7, 6, 4, 1, 1. Although the area of scholarship is likely to be lowly cited, the cites achieved by the subject are not sufficient to pass WP:Prof#1. I don't see anything else. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC).
  • Oppose. She has a fair number of publications, including several as senior author. Maias (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

::GS shows 8 publications with her as first author of 6. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC).

  • Comment. Given that her attempt to crowd fund her research has been mentioned, in rather more than passing, in both the NYT [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/science/12crowd.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all] and Die Zeit [http://www.zeit.de/2011/36/Forschung-Crowdfunding/komplettansicht] (both already cited in the article), there's an argument for WP:GNG - though possibly more at the "this deserves a mention somewhere" level than the "she deserves her own article" one. But one interesting note - while she gets several GNews hits, neither of these two is among them. Is GNews missing anything else? PWilkinson (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 23:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep{{spaced ndash}}The topic passes notability guidelines per WP:BIO, notability for people, specifically the section WP:BASIC, “A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.” If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.” Therefore, the topic passes WP:BIO, section WP:BASIC due to the availability of multiple independent sources which demonstrate notability and the manner of which those sources are not comprised of trivial coverage. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

:*Comment - To further clarify, keep vote is based upon additional sources [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/science/12crowd.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all ] and [http://www.zeit.de/2011/36/Forschung-Crowdfunding/komplettansicht ] listed above by user:PWilkinson. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

:*Comment - The nominator based the nomination for deletion upon information within the article, rather than upon the availability of reliable sources. This isn't congruent with WP:BEFORE guidelines. AfD is about the notability of topics based upon the availability of sources, not the article's content. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep. Agree that the RSs are there, as reflected above. Per WP:BEFORE, nominations should be focused on whether such sources exist, not whether they are in the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.