Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riin Tamm

:{{la|Riin Tamm}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Riin_Tamm Stats])

:({{Find sources|Riin Tamm}})

Following discussion on the article's talkpage, a number of editors have expressed concern as to whether this individual meets notability guidelines. NickCT (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - see article's talkpage. David (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• Keep A close case, but this seems to meet WP:PROF and WP:BIO. There is coverage of the subject in multiple independent sources. I think we should be careful of systematic bias in dismissing some of these Estonian sources. Also, I suspect this is attracting more scrutiny than it deserves because it was featured on WP:DYK. IronGargoyle (talk) 08:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment As far as I can see, this fails WP:PROF by a long stretch (and won't come close to meeting it for years to come, either). Can you perhaps tell us why you think this meets PROF? --Randykitty (talk) 09:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• The board membership and chairship in national Estonian scientific organizations. My comments directed towards systematic bias largely stem from these dismissals. We give examples of other nation-level scientific organizations (e.g., the Royal Society) on point 3 of WP:PROF. Beyond that though, the article still passes WP:BIO in my opinion. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• I really don't think that you can compare board membership in the Estonian Society of Human Genetics (with, according to its article, 87 members) or of the Estonian Association of Gerontology and Geriatrics (154 members) with being an elected fellow of the Royal Society, which is a very selective honor (and please also note that PROF#3 does not apply to board members of the Royal Society). That has nothing to do with a systematic bias against anything Estonian. It's just the reality that an 87 or 154-member society is not a huge body and with 6 board members (who usually rotate every few years), soon every member of the society would be notable under your interpretation of PROF. --Randykitty (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• I'm with Randy here. Though admittedly this isn't a clear cut case, and I think it's good to consider Gargoyle's point about systemic bias. I'm not really sure comparisons drawn between the Royal Society and any Estonian scientific organization are really valid. NickCT (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• What about WP:BIO and WP:GNG? The Postimees and Ohtuleht articles seem to be non-trivial coverage. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• Fair enough. But those are two articles in what are basically minor local sources. Still strikes me as borderline notability at best. NickCT (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. 23 citations in total means she is not notable as a scientist. She can still be notable as a journalist due to her pop-sci publications, but this has not been demonstrated in the article so far. I would be willing to reconsider if her notability as a journalist has been demonstrated.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• I don't think anyone is arguing to keep based on how many publications she has. What about WP:GNG? At least two of those references seem to be non-trivial coverage from independent sources. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. She does not pass the specialized WP:PROF "inherent notability" guideline for academics, but the citations show she clearly passes the WP:GNG test. She is a notable personality in the sense that Estonian TV and radio shows, newspapers and magazines ask her to pontificate about genetics and aging, and she organizes various national conferences and professional groups. A notable science pundit in Estonia. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Not trying to bust on Estonia or anything, but we are talking about a country of 1 million with a $15K GDP/cap. Saying "A notable science pundit in Estonia." is like saying, "A notable science pundit in Wyoming" (i.e. not that notable). NickCT (talk) 10:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• "Not trying to bust on Estonia"... sounds like "with all due respect" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• According to [http://estonia.eu/about-estonia/economy-a-it/economy-in-numbers.html this source] the Estonian GDP per capita is 67% of the EU-27 average, at €11,918. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• @Crisco 1492 - How does one say "I don't this country is very notable" is a nice and respectful manner? NickCT (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• The fact that you want to say that indicates that your argument is fallacious. Notability is not fame nor importance. It has no relationship to size of the country of origin. Uncle G (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Ugh oh.... Folks are bandying about big words like "fallacious"...... Look, a couple of people have basically made the argument that this subject seems important on the national level in Estonia. The obvious and completely non-fallacious response to that is; if Estonia isn't super notable, than the subject's notability on the national stage doesn't by itself confer notability. I absolutely agree that notability isn't fame or importance. But notability also isn't local. Just because someone is the premier scientist in Estonia or Andorra or Monaco or wherehave you, doesn't mean they're notable on the world stage. NickCT (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• You "don't this country is very notable" {{sic}}? Well, feel free to AFD everything related to Estonia. A singer or artist or science populariser notable at the national level should very much be notable, no matter what country he or she comes from. To say otherwise is to be decidedly Anglocentric (considering the number of D-level local celebrities from the US and Britain which have articles) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• I think we may be confusing notability w/ importance. Notability is international, universal and without regard for locality. Imagine I'm an artist from Andorra. I may be the best artist in Andorra (i.e. I may be important on a national level). That still doesn't really mean I'm "notable". Per Uncle G's comment; what really matters is the "depths and provenances of sources". "Notable at a national level" doesn't really make sense, because if someone is notable, they are notable at all levels. NickCT (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• "International" does not show up in WP:N, at all. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Also, if you are the best artist in Andorra yet have no coverage (even in national publications), how can we say you're the best? Tamm has coverage at the national level, which is enough to satisfy the guideline. She may get more later, but the criteria is already satisfied. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• I think your missing the point. Notability is a state a being. Like being dead. If you're dead, you're dead no matter what country you're in. Notability means you've been covered in RSs. If you're covered in RSs, you're covered in RSs no matter which country you're in. Again, the question we ought to be asking is about the "depths and provenances of sources". NickCT (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• It is, and she is in such a state under our current guidelines which do not require RSes to be international. Now, you were the one who brought in the nationality aspect (small nation = [next to] no notability). Remember? "Saying 'A notable science pundit in Estonia.' is like saying, 'A notable science pundit in Wyoming' (i.e. not that notable)." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Actually, if you read back, you'll note that Aymatth2 used the "notable in Estonia" comment to justify his "keep" rationale. Additionally, if you read through a number of comments below, you'll note a number of them use the "in Estonia this person is important" logic. Plus, you repeated the idea of "notability at a national level" being of some importance in determining whether we should keep/delete. I guess you no longer feel "at a national level" is relevant? re "do not require RSes to be international" - Right, but there is nothing in WP:RS about using the national origin of a source to determine if it's reliable. In other words, when judging whether something is a reliable source, you're not meant to consider whether it's Andorran, Estonian, etc... I guess by "international" what I meant is "not linked to any particular nationality" (perhaps that was unclear). NickCT (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Keep the newspaper coverage is quite substantial indication passing the WP:GNG requirement. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Keep that she is notable in her country is enough for Wikipedia. We have never required subjects to be world famous, otherwise articles like Chrisye would have been deleted. National relevance is certainly enough — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Keep she certainly passes WP:GNG. Yazan (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Delete As discussed above, there is no way this meets WP:PROF. Any notability therefore will have to come from WP:GNG. I agree with NickCT. Where is the limit? Countries come in many sizes and being well-known in one country is not the same as being well-known in another (or even in part of another country). Would the president of a learned society be notable if that society were, say, the "Nauru Association of Human Geneticists" (assuming there is even one over there)? Or if somebody is regularly consulted by the Andorran national newspaper Diari d'Andorra? Estonia is a very small country. Some other small countries like Belgium and the Netherlands have single cities with about as many inhabitants. Even within Estonia, Tamm's notability may be limited. Postimees has only a circulation of 61,000 to 72000, Õhtuleht less than 250,000. In all, I don't think this meets WP:GNG either. --Randykitty (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• You've succumbed to the same fame and importance fallacy as NickCT above. Notability is not fame nor importance. Try addressing the depths and provenances of sources, instead. Uncle G (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I rarely comment at AfDs, but noticed this article when it appeared on the main page and when I was leaving a note on the talk page of one of the editors of this article (possibly the DYK nominator). I have looked at some of the other articles worked on and/or created by the creator of this article, and is it possible that what we are seeing here in some cases is the creation of articles to go with photos? In some cases, that is fine, but my view (admittedly rather to the extreme end of the BLP debate) is that to really have a sense of what someone's career has achieved, you have to wait until the end of it, or when obituaries are published. While people are still doing what may make them notable, we should really only have a short stub (literally only a paragraph or two), which can then be expanded later as various levels are reached (such as attaining the awards and honours conferred by their peers as they progress in their career) and proper biographical sources are published. These include career retrospectives and articles to mark retirements and so on. For the vast majority of people, article are created far too early. They may continue to accrue notability and coverage, but there is really no need to create articles too early. It just ends up with discussions like this. Compare with William Francis (civil engineer), an article I recently reviewed for DYK. At the end of the day, we can't predict whether someone will continue to receive coverage or not, so we may end up with an article that never really goes anywhere (there are literally thousands of examples out there). Better to work on established people towards the end of their careers, rather than those at the start of their careers. Carcharoth (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• @Carcharoth - re "the creation of articles to go with photos?" - I suspected that, but am not sure. re "career has achieved, you have to wait until the end of it," - An interesting idea. But I think it would require some serious policy revision to enact that line of thinking. This AfD is probably not the best forum for serious policy debates. NickCT (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. It passes requirements and is well sourced.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Sometimes the outlook at AfD can be a bit short-term. It is entirely possible for an article to pass requirements and be well sourced, but still have an uncertain future. There is the very real possibility that Wikipedia will, if it has not already, end up with too many BLPs or stubby biographical articles to feasibly maintain. The line I try and draw is whether the birth and/or death year is known with any certainty. What you don't want to end up with is articles that are carefully maintained while someone is (presumably) alive, and then as they get older and fade from the public eye, all interest is lost in them, and their passing is not mentioned anywhere, and you end up with articles in a kind of limbo. An extreme example is Jack James (fencer). There are literally thousands of sportsperson bios like that. Where do you start with doing anything with that article? A less extreme example is Robert D. Parks, nominated for deletion in 2006. The changes since then in six years are [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_D._Parks&diff=425346351&oldid=63429664 here]. Again, where do you start with an article like that? Getting a birth year would be a good start, but many people still engaged in their career don't have the right sort of retrospective material published about them that tell us when they were born. It is the difference between CV-style information that people publish in their lifetimes (slanted towards promoting themselves to others and prospective employers), and proper, encyclopaedic, biographical overviews of someone's life. Apologies for going off-topic for this discussion, but it is something that should be discussed at WT:BIO or WT:GNG or somewhere. Those examples were not random, by the way, as the names are common so finding the information requested is particularly tricky. Carcharoth (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Passes all requirements and has a number of different sources. Not even sure why this is being discussed: is she suffering from some form of cultural censorship for not being from the Western powers? - SchroCat (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oh that's right..... The evil Westerners are trying to keep the Esotnians down. That's what this AfD is about. NickCT (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Actually, it's about the provenances and depths of sources, not Estonia at all. Notability is not fame nor importance. Try addressing the depths and provenances of sources, lest people conclude that the reason that you keep trying to make this a discussion of how unimportant Estonia is to you is that the argument about the provenances and depths of sources is unassailable. If you want to show otherwise, actually address the issue, instead of repeatedly distracting from it. Uncle G (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• re "how unimportant Estonia is" - Listen, if it sounds like I was making that point, I was only making it in response to a bunch of folks arguing that being important within the context of Estonia confers notability. "the depths and provenances of sources" are absolutely the only thing we should be considering, and I just don't think they support this subject's inclusion. NickCT (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - a very borderline case in my opinion, but leaning towards Keep. Deb (talk) 12:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Keep: I agree with Deb; it's borderline. Therefore I lean towards "keep". --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly notable in Estonia and therefore meets WP:GNG. It's not necessary for this individual to be known internationally for her to meet the notability requirements. Prioryman (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - This discussion has become much longer that the discussed article itself :-D Personally, I don’t think my Polish translation troubles someone. Happy New Year to everybody! --SU ltd. (talk) 10:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC) …and my Kirghiz stub as well. Saloom aleykum! --Kylike (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Weak Delete
• Fails the citation requirements of WP:PROF#C1, which is not surprising considering that we're talking about a graduate student.
• Fails the requirements of WP:PROF#C3, or "The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE)."
• The Estonian Association of Gerontology and Geriatrics is a very nice organization, but can hardly be classified as a major learned society. To quote the English version of its website, [http://www.egga.ee/index.php?id1=1&keel=eng] "EGGA is a voluntary union of people wishing to improve the life and health of the elderly. The association was created in 1997. As of January 1st 2012 EGGA has 125 members. EGGA members include people working with the elderly (medical doctors, nurses, social workers, rehabilitation specialists, nurse helpers, care workers, managers of care institutions), representatives of pensioners, those taking care of sick family members, and the elderly themselves." Board membership in what is essentially a club of people with a common interest (not dissimilar to a local Meetup) is not grounds for notability under WP:PROF#C3.

• Membership on the board of the Estonian Society of Human Genetics seems to be essentially an administrative responsibility, and not a distinction of scientific merit - that role seems to be fulfilled by its Lifetime Achievement Award, which the subject has not won, which fortunately lets us dodge the debate about whether a learned society in a country of 1.2 million people, with 118 members, should be considered on the same plane with storied bodies like the Royal Society, the US National Academy of Science or the Academie Francaise.
• We now pass to discussion of WP:PROF#C7 and the basic criterion of WP:BIO, or the coverage the subject has achieved outside the field of pure academic accomplishment. What we have here appear to be, according to Google Translate, a profile in the Tartu Post Times, an essay by the subject, and several articles on genetics where the subject is quoted briefly, mainly to the effect that less than 2% of the human genome has been studied. The essay by the subject can be disregarded as a primary source.
• Brief quotations concerning general knowledge by a student are not unusual in local newspapers, and do not constitute significant coverage or impact on science (to quote the guideline, "A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark.")
• The profile in the Tartu Post Times [http://www.tartupostimees.ee/650495/varviliste-jalgadega-naine-murrab-muute] is different. It is essentially a narration of an interview of the subject, since out of 26 scientists chosen to popularize science to schoolchildren in Estonia by the Archimedes Foundation (a foundation chartered by the Estonian government to promote the science of the country [http://archimedes.ee/en/foundation/]), she is one of 4 females and only one of 2 doctoral students chosen. Out of all the sources given, it comes closest to establishing grounds for notability. Judgment calls here are going to be subjective, but in my opinion, human interest profiles of promising young scientists, particularly attractive ones, are not uncommon in local newspapers, and do not constitute the sort of significant coverage that truly attends a person of note - particularly since we have only this one profile.

To conclude, what I think we have here is a promising young graduate student with an affinity for PR and community outreach, but has not yet passed the bar for notability, either as a scientist or for other accomplishments. Ray^Talk 03:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

:I agree with a lot of what RayAYang says here. It is clear that notability (in the sense of independent reliable sources writing about someone) is something that accrues throughout a person's life at various times. As I said above, the true litmus test for me is what is said about a person retrospectively, either towards the end of their career, after their career, or after they have died. What is said about a person at the time is not as useful, as it can lack the objectivity provided by distance in time. It is clear that as a person accrues notability, they cross some line that is hard to identify precisely. My view is that it is better to wait and err on the side of caution before creating articles like this. Also in part because it must be excruciating to be the subject of an article like this and have it debated like this. One final point: for science, one clear measure of notability that can in part address the issue for smaller countries where it may not be clear how prestigious the national organisation is, is whether someone has been elected to membership of a foreign learned or academic society, rather than just ones within the country. No comment on where Estonian science organisations fall on this spectrum. Carcharoth (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• comment The picture of the subject used in this article :File:Geneetik Riin Tamm.jpg is now a featured picture on commons and so had appeared on many WP wikis. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Delete Ray summed whole notability part really well. Sort of borderline case but I don't really like borderline BLPs. As we are dealing with living person its better to be sure. Possibly can be recreated in future if subject receives some more coverage.--Staberinde (talk) 10:05, 5 January 2013 (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.