Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camille A. Nelson

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 keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Camille A. Nelson[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject has been the dean of three law schools (please see WP:PROF criteria #6 -- holding the position of dean is specifically listed as not meeting the criteria). Otherwise no significant coverage. Does not meet WP:GNG, does not met WP:PROF. Paisarepa (talk) 04:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa (talk) 04:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa (talk) 04:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa (talk) 04:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa (talk) 04:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Being dean could be notable, but not through WP:PROF#C6, only through in-depth independent coverage of her sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Being an expert in intersectional feminism and the law could be notable through WP:PROF#C1, but only if her scholarship has made an impact through high citations or multiple book reviews, and I don't see it in this case (citation counts not high enough and a co-edited anthology is not going to be enough for WP:AUTHOR). Being a pioneer for diversity in the Canadian court system could be notable, but again, only through sufficient independent coverage to pass WP:GNG. Searching for her name finds a lot of not-very-in-depth not-very-independent pages from places she has been affiliated with, congratulating her on her moves to new administrative positions or congratulating themselves on hiring her. I don't think that counts for much. But I did find two in-depth articles on her in Diverse Issues in Higher Education (clearly independent and reliable): [1] [2]. Two articles in the same source is not enough for WP:GNG, and other sources like this one at Afro.com that are mostly based on one of the Diverse stories don't add much more. But if another story of similar quality could be found, from another of her career steps rather than being just another copy of the same material, and also not just churnalism copying of university press releases, I'd likely change to a weak keep. (If this is kept, it would be good to add that the book she co-edited is with her sister Charmaine Nelson, who I believe is notable, but I can only find non-reliable sources for them being sisters.) —David Eppstein (talk) 05:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though entirely based on David Eppstein's very careful and thoughtful analysis. Our notability criteria are guidelines, not hard rules, so if someone (or some topic) just falls below several criteria then this should give pause for thought. Perhaps taking a broad view the topic is notable overall. However, I would take a much stricter line on whether the information is verifiable. Is the encyclopedia improved by having this article? I think it is. Thincat (talk) 08:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found these:

[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
12 Sexuality without Borders: Exploring the Paradoxical Connection between Dancehall and Colonial Law in Jamaica
[8]

I don't know how to evaluate these. The last url above I think swings it for a keep for me. One of her paper is referenced dozens of times in this article [9] I think it is probably a Keep for me. scope_creep^Talk 10:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The last link is a press release from Columbia University listing people associated with the school who were named to a top-100 list published by media company 'On Being A Black Lawyer'; landing on these types of lists and press releases is not indicative of notability. The second, third, fourth, and sixth in the list are academic works published by the subject. Academic works are indicative of notability if they demonstrate the subject has made a significant impact in their field but I don't see an indication that is the case for those works. The first and third are announcements with very little depth, what I would characterize as non-significant, routine coverage. The National Law Review article doesn't indicate notability -- dozens of references doesn't mean a lot when they are all in the same paper. Paisarepa (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Thincat. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to make some small improvements to this article with citations and more detail, but those edits would not publish for some reason. The error message said there was a conflict that needed to be resolved, but I could not figure out where the conflict was. SJTatsu (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The edit history shows that you added a reference [10]. Were there additional edits? Paisarepa 20:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the conflict message merely means that you double-clicked the publish button and that the second "publish" conflicted with the first. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:BEFORE indicates that this article subject meets the WP:GNG for coverage of her achievement of several historic firsts. BD2412 T 22:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mind providing evidence? Specifically, that her achieving these historic firsts received significant coverage in independent reliable sources? Paisarepa 23:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The citations are already in the article. BD2412 T 00:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of the citations in the article provide significant coverage in independent reliable sources of the subject's achievement of several historic firsts. If you disagree, please point out which reference does so. Paisarepa 00:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your response, I request that you do a reference analysis to indicate which sources, specifically, you think are either unreliable, or fail to provide significant coverage. BD2412 T 00:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that analysis. Not a single one of them provides significant coverage of her historic firsts. I'm sorry that you took it personally that I nominated your article for deletion, but you don't need to follow me here just to be tendentious. I welcome your input but please make it constructive and useful. Paisarepa 00:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] I'm not Paisarepa, but here's my analysis of the sources in the current version:

1. University of Hawaii announcement. Not independent.

2 and 3. Different versions of a single brief Boston Globe story announcing her hire. At five sentences long, the last two of which say nothing of interest about Nelson, I question whether this is sufficiently in-depth to count for anything.

4. Contributor biography for a piece she wrote. Not independent.

5 and 8. Business Journal press-release churnalism. Not reliable.

6. Deadlink announcement by former employer. Not independent.

7. News story about Hawaii announcement. Independent, and more in-depth than the Globe piece, but still local.

9. Local interest story about a student excursion, not primarily about Nelson.

10. Employer announcement. Not independent.

11. One of the two Diverse pieces. Independent, reliable, non-local, and in-depth.

—David Eppstein (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. I agree with respect to the Diverse piece. The Boston Globe is obviously, reliable and independent, so the question is significance. The "Historic firsts" article is succinct, but I would find it to be enough to contribute to notability (although not establishing it independently). Regarding the Business Journal piece (I have consolidated this into a single reference), I am not convinced that this is churnalism; there does seem to be some effort on the part of the author to do real journalism here, as they note that Nelson at one point and the university at another gave "no explanation" for some things, and that the closure of a center associated with the law school "came as a surprise" to the family that funded it. I doubt that these are things that the institution would put in a self-promotional document. The article on the Cuba trip, while not primarily about Nelson, provides two fairly notable facts (the novelty of a person in her position traveling to Cuba, and her facilitation of the student visit), which I would contend contributes to notability. I would hang my hat on the sum of the sources other than the employer announcements. BD2412 T 01:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She is notable. Those are two significant firsts. Her media mentions may be lean, but they do exist. There are many wiki articles about law deans with fewer media mentions and less notability so I don't know why deleting hers is a priority. Considering the well-established challenges for women and POC to get media mentions in the first place, hers are significant.SJTatsu (talk) 03:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First Black woman to clerk at the highest court of Canada....commonsense indicates this a notable person.--Goldsztajn (talk) 05:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A new interview with the subject [11] appeared yesterday in Hawaii Business Magazine, which looks like it might be a weakly reliable (if very local) source. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia's insistence on applying much more restrictive criteria to knowledge workers than to professional wrestlers is a prime example of institutional stupidity. Here, that stupidity is compounded by refusal to recognize that professional schools like Yale Drama, Harvard Divinity, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Stanford Law, etc, etc, etc should be regarded as "major academic institutions" on Wikipedia, just as they are regarded in the rational world. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 05:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.