Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esther Pearson

: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. causa sui (talk) 07:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

=[[Esther Pearson]]=

:{{la|Esther Pearson}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Esther Pearson}})

Promotional article created by subject, a non-notable academic. (cf. WP:Notability (academics).) Only one reliable independent third-party source is cited; it is behind a paywall. Chonak (talk) 03:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Chonak (talk) 03:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Chonak (talk) 03:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete. Subject solidly fails WP:PROF. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete Provides notability and examination for minority academics and mathematicians; another example or attempt of the contributions of women mathematicians and minority women mathematicians being deleted from history. Where is the diversity in Wikipedia? Epearson2020 (talk 08:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. User:Epearson2020 is the creator (and probably the subject) of the article. She has made no other contributions to the project. Tthe question of "Where is the diversity in Wikipedia?" is not relevant to assessing the notability of the subject. The subject seems to have published no highly-cited publications, well-known books, etc. Wikipedia is not the place to right the wrongs of history. When history texts are written about Esther Pearson, then we can start to have an article about her. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. An explanation of "notability" as it applies to academics can be found at WP:PROF. A scholar may have accomplished meritorious work and yet not meet the criteria for "notability". Those criteria are meant to identify persons who are already well-known to the public or within a field; thus, a Wikipedia article is created on the basis of already established renown and not beforehand. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. (See WP:NOT for other things Wikipedia is not.) --Chonak (talk) 01:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: It is not Wikipedia's job to promote "diversity;" indeed, it is not Wikipedia's job to promote anything at all. If Ms. Pearson wishes a greater stature in academia, I recommend she do the things necessary for academia to take public notice of her. Wikipedia, of course, cannot be her press agent.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  03:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

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

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Weak keep There is some assertion of notability re: WP:Notability (academics), particularly pertaining to criteria 4 and 7 with her development of the "STEPS" program as a set of educational guidelines (as it seems to be recognized by several educational organizations and implemented in at least a few places) and her establishment of the Mary McLeod Bethune Institute, which was recognized by the Dept. of Labor. I will admit these assertions of notability are shaky at best, and would only hold up with better referencing, hence my 'weak keep' stance. Additionally, this article has serious COI issues and could stand some pruning and cleanup, but those alone are not reason to delete. LaMenta3 (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment It may be hard to find independent references about the use of the STEPS program, at this point twenty years after it was developed, back in the pre-Web era. Even the WITI page which describes STEPS and the Mary McLeod Bethune Institute was written by Tiffani Pearson (a volunteer for the MMBI; related?). This is not an independent third-party source. As an indication of MMBI's influence, two data points: (1) the Mass. Department of Education says they were no longer offering courses as of 2004[http://www.doe.mass.edu/ops/licensure/no_require.html]. However, MMBI's IRS tax filings show that the program is operating but small: it served "over 100 youths" in 2009: info found under its new corporate name: National Association Christian Education Ministry, Inc., via guidestar.org. (Complicating the search for references to MMBI is an apparently unrelated school of the same name in Los Angeles.) -- Chonak (talk) 07:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. Promotional article whose Subject fails notability guidelines for academics. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. very worthy citizen, but I can't see the case for notability here. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC).
  • Delete: Fails the prof test, meets no standards of notability, fails the GNG, and no evidence has been proffered that this STEPS program meets any standards of notability in its own right, so much so as to confer notability on its creator. We do not, and cannot, confer "conditional" notability pending better referencing; we can only delete without prejudice, pending better referencing.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  03:21, 18 July 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.