Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eszter Hargittai

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 of the debate was Keep. --D e ath phoenix 00:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eszter Hargittai

Improperly (in my opinion this is apparently disputed) speedied under CSD:A7 now listed for due process ALKIVAR™ 01:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep recipient of the Woodrow Wilson Scholarship, Notable internet sociologist interviewed by the BBC and CNNfn. Quoted by the Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, BBC News, and Wired Magazine. Mentioned in US Senate during hearings on the PROTECT Act of 2003. Considered one of the prominent experts on "the Internet and its social effects" which I believe (have to check) was the subject of her dissertation for her Princeton Ph.D in Sociology. Currently a professor at Northwestern University and Faculty Fellow of the Institute for Policy Research at that university. ALKIVAR™ 01:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being interviewed or quoted doesn't make one notable, getting a scholarship doesn't make one notable. Being an adjunct professor is not notable. This person is on a tenure-track, and when she gets there maybe that will be notable. Ruby 02:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'd disagree: being interviewed or quoted DOES make one notable. You seem to be suggesting, Ruby, that for academics the ONLY measure of notability is tenure. I'd disagree; it's only one measure. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 03:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not to be a WikiLawyer or anything, but the guide for notability says, "Professors are not notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field of interest." This is a high bar to clear. The contributions of Eszter Hargittai seem to consist of writing a dissertation on the internet and being the media's on-call expert on internet issues. Now if she had invented the internet like Al Gore that would be a horse of a different color. Ruby 03:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree with a reading of those guidelines that implies that professors have to clear a higher bar than non-professors. To clarify, I don't think she clears the notability bar by very much, but I think she clears it. The article in its current state is way too vanity, though. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 03:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you call it vanity, as I'm the one who rewrote it? ALKIVAR™

23:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one interview does not make you notable. --Pboyd04 03:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep A fairly close call but quite a lot on Google Scholar and the media stuff just about tips the balance for me. Dlyons493 Talk 03:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Arbustoo 04:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you check the recent history, you'll see deletions of references to other interviews. Then people come back and say there's only one interview. I think one reference is enough for an entry, but the whole procedure seems problematic to me JQ 06:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC) (originally created entry)[reply]
Keep per ALKIVAR. --Rob 08:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Astrokey44|talk 09:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable person Nortonew 14:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep and good catch by Alkivar. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ...as per nominator? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:BIO unless we penalize her for being a professor. Kappa 08:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO; just one of the millions of unnotable academics around the globe. Untenured to boot! Eusebeus 20:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to fail WP:BIO. I do note that some claims have been removed as without WP:CITE, but in the absence of references to support these claims, the removal was proper. I'd also note to there appear to be several pure votes in this discussion. To simply say "keep" or even "keep, notable" does not provide a testable hypothesis. Finally I've removed some links per Wikipedia:Reliable sources. - brenneman^(t)^(c) 07:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Those claims were removed as "vague and trivial" not as lacking citation, which at least some of them have. I have replaced them as they demonstrate that her ideas have a wide audience. Kappa 07:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please remember that WP:V is not negotiable. Right now the only claim that is supported is the BBC one. If these claims are correct, than provide some evidence. Why is that even an issue? - brenneman^(t)^(c) 07:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I regard university websites as reliable published sources. Kappa 07:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - The personal pages of staff are mostly writtne by that staff member, and in this event still do not provide a link to where exactly it is that these "quotes" appeared. The fact that more time is being spent edit warring over the unsupported material rather than simply providing the evidence asked for is worrying. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 08:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think university staff are likely to lie about themselves on their personal pages, your opinion may differ. Removing credible claims without trace does not aid the purpose of determining whether users would value access to information about this person or not. Kappa 08:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Here's where I point to someone doing something constructive and sigh deeply in thanks. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 08:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Claims of non-notability are not very convincing, and tenure would make a very bad criterion. -- Jake 00:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dlyons493 Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 17:56, 26 January 2006 (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.