Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer McCreight

: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 no consensus. There is no consensus to delete or redirect. v/r - TP 01:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

=[[Jennifer McCreight]]=

{{notavote}}

:{{la|Jennifer McCreight}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Jennifer McCreight}})

This is a WP:BLP of a student who organized an event called Boobquake and has blogged and commented on feminism and atheism. Boobquake is a notable event that passes WP:N, but I believe that this biography page fails WP:BLP1E. If one looks at the sourcing unrelated to Boobquake, and non-local and independent of the subject, the remaining reliable sources consist of the following. An article in The Guardian about the dominance of men in the New Atheism, [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/sep/26/new-atheism-boys-club], mentions the subject twice in passing. A short profile of the subject is one of fourteen in an article at More.com, [http://www.more.com/news/womens-issues/what-new-feminists-look]. A book review in the Seattle Post Intelligencer, [http://www.seattlepi.com/ae/books/article/Book-Review-The-Atheist-s-Guide-to-Christmas-910298.php], briefly comments humorously on something the subject wrote about joke gifts. Aside from some rather light references in several blogs, that's it. Much of the page summarizes the subject's education, but the subject clearly does not pass WP:ACADEMIC. Editors have discussed on the article talk page finding more sources to establish notability, but mostly agree that all the sources have already been found. I think the best result would be to make the page a redirect to Boobquake, but one editor has objected to doing so, which brings us here. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep I am of the opinion that I did an excellent job of finding numerous sources that exceeded the requirements of WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E. I'm aware that simply as an academic she's not notable; however, she's become a regular on the atheism/skeptic talk circuit. I also feel like you're oversimplifying the sourcing- at the moment there are 25 references about her, and I'd say a great deal more than four (or so) are reliable. I do want to say that I understand your concerns with the article but don't agree with them. :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • :Thanks for the collegial way you said that; I understand your perspective too. To be clear: there's plenty of reliable sourcing related to Boobquake. There's also additional sourcing related to her roles in atheism and feminism, and the issue I'm raising isn't reliability per se, but rather reliability in combination with being non-local and being truly independent of the subject. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Redirect I asked the question on the talk page rather than start an AfD because I have been on the cusp. At the time I was aware of some reliable sources not in the article, but not sufficient to establish notability. The result of my inquiry was some sources I had not been aware of. It was still a weak case at best, but in the absence of objection, I did not file. Now that someone else has filed, I think it best remains a redirect until a better case can be made based on more thorough coverage.Novangelis (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep While this is a borderline case, I would argue that McCreight is just notable enough in her own right as an activist to warrant a separate article. The primary arguments against this article--that most of the sources discuss Boobquake and those that don't are either "local," in-passing mentions, or "minor"--are not on their own an argument for deletion or against notability. The basic criteria for notability states: "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" (emphasis mine). I interpret this to mean that it is allowable and possible to use a body of "minor" coverage by multiple sources to establish notability, but absent any other central claim to notability, this is probably not enough. I will concede that McCreight is primarily known for Boobquake, which is indeed her central claim to notability in this case, but the unrelated, fully independent sources, taken as a whole rather than individually, demonstrate that she has become notable as an atheist and feminist activist and writer in general.

:I also think that perhaps my definition of "intellectually independent" sources is different than the nominator's. Nowhere does that imply to me that local coverage should be excluded (or counted as less). Further, we need to take into account the context of McCreight's activism--coverage of both atheist and feminist activism suffer from the phenomenon of "name loading" in the media(where the article throws as many relevant names and quotes at you as possible to "prove" that the ideas presented aren't fringy). The Guardian article is probably most guilty of this in this list of sources, but the nominator also uses the fact that McCreight is one of 14 profiles in a More magazine article (it was in print, not just an online feature, by the way) as evidence that the coverage was "trivial." If you look at the coverage of almost any other major name in atheist activism with similar blogging or writing credentials as McCreight (many of whom have articles that could definitely use some love and independent sources of their own), you'll see the same media treatment. Perhaps that's an argument for putting up at least 4 or 5 more AfDs, but again I argue that a central, cohesive claim to notability that can be supported by a broad body of mostly minor independent coverage is enough to tip the balance toward "notable enough" in borderline cases such as this. LaMenta3 (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

::I see your point in your first paragraph, but I think that if one goes through each of the sources, and removes those that are about Boobquake, there isn't much left. A lot of what I meant by "local" are sources either from the university the subject attends, or groups of which the subject is a member. I fully agree that there are plenty of Boobquake-related sources, and I guess it comes down to a judgment call about whether the additional sources add up in the way you describe – and I do agree that this is a judgment call. About "name loading" in your second paragraph, I'm afraid that seems to me to be original research. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

:::Original research is frowned on (for excellent reasons) *in articles*. I don't see that there's anything wrong with it in AfD discussions. Gareth McCaughan (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

::::OK, you have a good point there. Let's change what I said, then, to "personal opinion, and I'm not convinced by it." --Tryptofish (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

:::::"Name loading" (or something very similar) was a phrase that I recall reading in a paper about logical fallacies and the psychology of groups while I was in grad school. I've looked high and low for the actual paper and I can't manage to find it. (I know you have no reason to take my word for this, but bear with me here.) Admittedly, it's a bit of a neologism, but it's related to the concepts of Argumentum ad populum and Argument from authority as a way to frame groups outside of the traditional mainstream as acceptable because a lot of people are doing it, and then by listing actual names, it puts a human face on it and make it all the more palatable. I'll keep looking for the paper (or one that talks about the same thing). This is actually driving me crazy because I can't find something I know that exists, even though at this point it's really tangential to the discussion. LaMenta3 (talk) 21:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep In my opinion existing references are sufficient to show her notability. Francis Bond (talk) 13:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep a very well known figure in the atheist community so I am surprised sources are so hard to find, I have added a few and I think the article just scrapes by. JORGENEV 06:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

::Thanks for taking the time to add those. :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Boobquake. Most of the above keeps are worded very tentatively. Perhaps what makes them uncomfortable and certainly what makes me uncomfortable with this article are the sources, which are mostly either web flotsam and/or obscure regarding the subject herself (e.g. using her [http://www.gs.washington.edu/academics/gradprogram/mccreight.htm student web page] as documentation for grad student status or [http://radiofreethinker.com/2010/12/01/show-notes-for-episode-91/ podcast liner notes]), or are emphemeral and/or articles written by the subject herself about Boobquake, e.g. [http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/started-boobquake/story?id=10501987 this one]. None of these really are WP:RS about McCreight, as notability policies require. Rather, the 28 sources in this article tell me collectively that the subject is known to the broader world only through Boobquake, which was (so far) a one-time-only event – textbook case of WP:BLP1E, I would say. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC).

::Comment. The linked page is not "her student web page." It is an official profile on the department's web page that exists for each one of its graduate students, which is not under her control. It's hard to imagine a more reliable source for the claim that she's a graduate student in that department. --Grouse (talk) 20:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

:::Please understand that the issue here is not whether we have sufficient reliable sourcing that she is a student in that department (or, as a recent edit added to the page, that she won an undergraduate academic award), but whether such sources establish notability. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

::::Fair point. --Grouse (talk) 20:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep. The subject is a well-known figure in atheist and skeptical circles and is a sought-after speaker at national events. The focus of the current article, however, perhaps is a bit too much on other aspects of the subject which do not meet the criteria for notability. --Grouse (talk) 20:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well-sourced. Gamaliel (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

:*Disagree. Please see below. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC).

  • Keep. McCreight is already well-known enough in atheist and feminist circles to qualify as notable for her blogging and activism, not just Boobquake. As pointed out above, she's a sought-after speaker at atheist conferences. She is also sufficiently active within those circles that she is likely to become more notable in the future. That moves her strongly into the keep column. --Rocketgeek 21:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC) Note: this editor has made no previous edits. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Several editors have commented that the subject is well-known in atheist and other circles, but editors simply saying so does not make it so. We need sources that indicate the subject is notable in this regard. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

::My attempt to cite that when I wrote the article was to cite the guest lists of these notable atheist/skeptic conferences (for example, The Amaz!ng Meeting: [http://www.amazingmeeting.com/speakers]) and her appearances on podcasts (ex: Savage Love) - how else would you go about citing that? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

:::Sure, I understand that. I'd argue that you would need sources beyond the blogosphere that commented that her appearances in such places were of note. I don't think that there are enough such sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment. Two of the "keeps" immediately above are arguing WP:FAME and WP:CRYSTAL, which specifically do not move her "strongly into the keep column". We need WP:RS that discuss her specifically and, moreover, outside of her association with Boobquake. Failing that, this is a textbook case of WP:BLP1E. Agricola44 (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC).

::I don't think they're so much arguing WP:FAME as they are simply saying she's notable outside of Boobquake. There are certainly RS in the article that are outside of Boobquake, the key question of this discussion is the detail and breadth of those sources. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

:::I think the reference to FAME meant that they were just saying that she is notable outside of Boobquake, without backing that assertion up with an analysis of the sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

::::Fair point. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

:::::Precisiely. The above arguments are nothing more than assertion of WP:FAME. With respect to sources outside of Boobquake, they're either trivial mentions of her name, e.g. [http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/4978/does_atheism_have_a_misogyny_problem/ 2]: "bloggers like ... and Jen McCreight replied...", [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/sep/26/new-atheism-boys-club ref 7]: "of women like ... McCreight ... indicates anything, it's that...", discussion on blogs (e.g. ref 8, ref 21), listing on organizational websites (e.g. refs 12, 19), etc. There's little if anything here that qualifies as WP:RS. She is undoubtedly famous in some sense, but I think that if we are following our own rules, an article for her will have to wait until there are real sources. Agricola44 (talk) 15:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC).

  • I have noticed that the subject of the page is commenting about this AfD in her blog (which may be why some comments have appeared here). Since she is probably reading this, I'd like to say that my nominating the page is definitely nothing personal against her! My reading of her post is that she is saying, in part, that it feels awkward to watch people discussing whether the article about her should exist. In my opinion, this is very much an important part of why we have WP:BLP1E. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

{{collapse top|Off-topic speculation}}

  • Post is [http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2011/10/todays-dose-of-my-life-is-weird/#comments here]. Given the presumption that most of her readers are sympathetic, I'm afraid it's also possible that Miss McCreight is engaging in off-site canvassing. Agricola44 (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC).
  • BLP discussions are not appropriate forums for speculative allegations against the subject of the article. Gamaliel (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

:::*Sorry, but WP:CANVAS is routinely called-out in all AfDs, whenever it is detected, although I'll note that I did not make an accusation. I only raised the possibility – because this case is unusual in that we do not typically have web-savvy subjects commenting on their own AfDs off-site in real time. I don't know whether you've read the blog post. But there is, in fact, a suggestive excerpt written by Miss McCreight, "It’s also weird finding things wrong with my article and not being able to fix it, due to the rules about not editing stuff where you have conflicts of interests. I won the Undergraduate Student Research Award from the American Society of Mammlogists, not Microbiologists! And then there are other awards I’ve won that don’t have documentation available on the internet, and therefore get lost in No Citation land. Oh well." This passage expresses dissatisfaction with the situation and supplies information to presumably sympathetic readers who could get involved in this AfD. If this were her intention, it would absolutely be considered canvassing. I don't think it's possible to know, but I think we should ask Miss McCreight, if she is reading this, for the courtesy to reserve any further comments on her own blog regarding this AfD until after it closes. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC).

:::::Since you've used your response to expand on your allegation tenfold, I've collapsed this discussion. Commenting on something is not canvassing, correcting errors is not canvassing. When the subject of the article actually does something that constitutes canvassing, you can call it out here. Until then, please keep unsubstantiated speculation regarding living individuals to yourself. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

::::::I'm sorry that you've mis-interpreted legit AfD discussion (twice now) as "allegation". If it makes you feel better to obscure this from others, so be it. Best, Agricola44 (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC).

{{collapse bottom}}

  • Keep. Another source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/sep/26/new-atheism-boys-club?newsfeed=true 76.175.197.99 (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

:*That's already reference 7 in the article and it's one of the ones that only makes trivial mention of her name (see above). With all due respect, it appears you've read neither the article nor the AfD carefully. Agricola44 (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC).

::Foiled by the match-case checkbox in ctrl-f :( but it looks like the nominator has put even less effort into finding more sources. Cite Pharyngula. PZ Myers has a larger readership, and is more of a reliable source, than the typical paid-journalist hack who mindlessly copies press releases and plagiarizes other journalists. WP:RS does not disqualify blogs categorically and I've no more time to waste on this ridiculous AFD nom. 76.175.197.99 (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

:::While WP:RS doesn't categorically disqualify blogs, WP:BLPSPS does, with the rationale that self-published blogs that do not have some editorial control exerted over them are not reliable as sources about living persons. I see the argument there, as there are a lot of gossip blogs and blog drama that can result in sourcing of incorrect information, and it's hard to police the entire blogopshere as to which blogs are known for reliable information and which aren't. I don't necessary agree with the policy as it unnecessarily discounts a lot of sources which would be considered acceptable as supporting sources in academia, but this isn't the place to have that fight. LaMenta3 (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete - The piling on of repetitive source after repetitive source does not alleviate the crystal-clear WP:BLP1E-ness of the subject. She has done one thing of note, the Boobquake thing; everything else is the typical blood-squeezing from a stone that fans typical try to to to 1E biographies to inflate the importance. Tarc (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete as a clear case of BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC).

{{collapse top|Off-topic speculation}}

  • Comment. Re "Off-topic speculation" discussion hidden above: That [http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2011/10/todays-dose-of-my-life-is-weird/#comments post] now has a response by a [http://www.facebook.com/Gerbic "susangerbic"] saying that McCreight has canvassed for this article via blog in the past and invites readers to get involved. Lest others be upset, I'm not saying there is canvassing going on now – only reporting what's on McCreight's blog. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 14:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC).

:*Reply Actually, the post says that the subject's blog linked to a blog about skeptics countering "woo" on Wikipedia a month ago. I think that "canvass" is a loaded term. There is nothing to suggest that there was any intent to skew the process. She has drawn attention to this site on her blog, and it is fairly likely that some of the opinions here were a result of that post, and that they may not be representative of editors otherwise here. That factor should be taken into consideration at close. On the other hand, there is no active call to save her article. We owe her the courtesy found within Wikipedia:Assume good faith and should accept her post as honest bemusement at this discussion.Novangelis (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

::*I agree with Novangelis. I saw the posting to which Agricola44 refers (if you go to the link, scroll down to comment number 16 – after pausing to see comment number 4!). It's very clear that the subject comments about this AfD, but the reference in that posting is to people coming here to improve the page in the past, not to canvassing in this AfD. I think there have been some SPA comments in this AfD, but they are easy enough to identify and discount. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

:::*Fair enough. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC).

{{collapse bottom}}

  • Redirect It seems to me that this falls under 1E, at least for now. Subject is a young, energetic blogger but not established in her field, not a published author, and really only known for one thing (Boobquake). That is why I think redirect is the best answer - that way if she further distinguishes herself later we can remove the redirect. Allecher (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Despite all the wikipuffery this still looks like a clear case of BIO1E to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:14, 18 October 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.