Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jen Gunter

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jen Gunter[edit]

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

Unremarkable physician. Fails WP:GNG. Reads like a vanity article by proxy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing, but for "According to PeerIndex she was as of mid-2011 the third most influential female physician active in social media by way of Twitter." Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the two ahead of her don't have articles on wp; should we create those or delete hers? there are no other options.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHER STUFF DOESN'T EXIST Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

??— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there are no articles about #1 or #2 doesn't have anything to do with whether the article about #3 fulfils notability or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. i was kidding. usually i don't take the risk, but the phrase "third most influential" overwhelmed my sense of proportion.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It's not clear to me that "third most influential..." is sufficient to overcome notability requirements, it simply took it out of the "slam-dunk non-notable" category for me. You'll note that I haven't !voted one way or the other as of yet -- I'm waiting to see what other arguments are presented. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete—nothing third party at all except that lancet article. i would love to be proved wrong, though, because i think third ought to be the notability cutoff for "most influential X by way of twitter," except the sources are just too stubborn to support it.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Lancet citation alone regarding physicians' usage of social media suffices for notability; PeerIndex only provides a ranking within the more exclusive ambit of female physicians actively engaged in social media. kencf0618 (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure having three paragraphs about one's use of Twitter in the Lancet counts as sufficient to meet our notability guidelines, if that is what you are arguing. As for the claim that Gunter is the "third most influential", that is entirely original research inserted into the article by you. The source identifies the list as "a list of female docs who are currently engaged in social media", making no claim of influence nor suggesting that the order of the list is a ranking of any quality. In fact, the author suggests that "measuring social influence is problematic, however, and social influence changes over time". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - fair enough, but how would you feel about List of third most notable people in PeerIndex by way of Twitter? be honest, now.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Dr. Robert W. West, Jr. used PeerIndex as one primary source, and indeed noted it as one metric; I see no need to overextend the citation's usage to your hypothetical extent, however. That said, the side issue of PeerIndex's notability rankings vis-à-vis Wikipedia notability criteria probably bears watching given the burgeoning importance of social media. kencf0618 (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The list of "female docs" doesn't appear to be a ranking, so "third most-influential" is not accurate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the article to more accurately reflect what the citation provided actually says. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment—i don't think that your correction accurately reflected what the source says. i fixed it to include the fact that west himself says explicitly that he's not asserting anything about notability with his list. as west says, I ceased collecting names upon reaching 25 total. My goal wasn’t to list all female docs who use social media, but to provide a sufficient number of examples for others to follow, and enough to indicate that female docs using social media are indeed not a rare species. The order shown provides no indication of either personal or professional qualification.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The one item in Lancet (in a very informally written technology column) does not satisfy WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage by MULTIPLE independent sources. (And I can't believe that people are seriously arguing for her notability based on the fact that she uses Twitter a lot!) Nothing else of significance appears in the citations at the article, or in a search of Google News. Her citations at Google Scholar are a little more impressive but IMO not enough to meet WP:ACADEMIC. --MelanieN (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2011 (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.