Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Melbourne-Thomas

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. MBisanz ^talk 18:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Melbourne-Thomas[edit]

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

Not enough WP:RS to assert notability Baum des Lichtes (talk) 05:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plenty of reliable sources.--Grahame (talk) 02:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOTSOFSOURCES duffbeerforme (talk) 03:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep With all of these references: [1], [2],[3], [4], [5], [6], and [7] Thomas passes WP:GNG due to significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Also she won a major award in her country. "Tasmania’s Young Tall Poppy of the Year in 2015." Source to verify the award is here: [8] The article subject has well crossed the threshold of notability. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 04:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Banned sockpuppet HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those refs are primary and associated with the subject, not independent. Tasmania’s Young Tall Poppy of the Year in 2015 is a very minor award. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks coverage about her in Independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm neutral at the moment as the sources are almost all her employers, rather than third party sources. LibStar (talk) 07:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One well-cited paper ("Climate change cascades") and an h-index of 10 on Google scholar [9] is a good start, but WP:TOOSOON for WP:PROF#C1. The tall poppy is too local for #C2. And I don't see the mainstream media attention (for instance, reports on some of her research, or on her award) that would let this get by on WP:GNG grounds instead of WP:PROF; the link given by FRdJ is independent-enough of the subject, but doesn't actually say much about her, and in any case we need multiple nontrivial independent sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- PS I notice on looking again that, for the paper mentioned above, she is in a middle position among maybe 28 co-authors. So it's not worth much for academic notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete The vast majority of sources listed here and in the article are not independent of the subject and thus fails WP:BIO. Also does not meet WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 09:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "sources" listed above are all web ephemera and Tall Poppy is not a notable award. Agricola44 (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I've just added three more secondary sources from popular media describing her accomplishments in advocating for women in science. Also I think the Rhodes is inarguably a major award. In aggregate I think she passes WP:GNG. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These do show she is locally famous, but are there any non-local sources that "note" her? Agricola44 (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Hi User:Agricola44, if I may, I'll point out that the three different outlets already cited are from three different parts of Australia: The Mercury's from Tasmania, Daily Life is a national outlet based in Sydney, and the Weekly Review's from Melbourne--so to me that already seems like national coverage rather than local.

But if more may be helpful, here's an article from the Sydney Morning Herald:

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/homeward-bound-trip-to-take-78-female-leaders-in-science-to-antarctica-20150924-gjuhx9

And a segment from ABC Radio National (public radio in Australia):

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/eighty-female-scientists-to-lead-expedition-to/6793688

Thanks for your close consideration! Innisfree987 (talk) 02:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Innisfree987 I appreciate that you are looking for sources. However, all of these sources are essentially talking about one event and this falls in WP:BLP1E territory. We need something more significant. In addition, we simply do not use local sources for notability - even if they are from different parts of the country. This is because local sources may tend to put more weight on certain local issues. In addition, many local sources reprint news/have a content sharing policy. In this case for example, Fairfax media owns all 3 newspapers - Sydney Morning Herald, the weekly review and Daily life. We need sources to be independent of each other to actually find out how genuinely notable a person it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant is that the 2 papers are local. (Daily Life is a website.) We see more and more BLPs that are supported largely by local sources and it becomes increasingly difficult to be convinced that such sources demonstrate notability. Agricola44 (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

As for the 2 links, one doesn't mention her and one mentions her trivially (by name in 1 sentence). I think again that such sources are symptomatic of eroding standards for BLP inclusion. Can we establish that her research has impacted science, say by lots of citations to her work? Are there major reviews of her research? Are there any national periodicals (NYT, LAT, CT, etc) that give substantive biographical info on her? Does she have any recognized awards, endowed chair, fellowship in a technical society? I realize my view that accomplishments beget notability via being noted is increasingly at odds with the "there are sources, even though they're local or only for BLP1E" philosophy, but it remains my view. Melbourne-Thomas is an early-in-career academic with an average research record (GS h-index 7). She very likely will be notable in the future. It's simply WP:TOOSOON. Agricola44 (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Various questions to cover. Her h-index is 10, rather than 7. She also has 500+ Google Scholar citations, a major award (the Rhodes) and then this women-in-science advocacy project which--even if we throw out the sources you're deeming too small, though I'm not persuaded they're all really so irrelevant--has garnered attention from at least two independent, national outlets in AUS (for the link you say doesn't mention her: are you talking about the radio segment? The text is only a summary, not a transcript; she's there if you listen to the audio.) So to me that's several distinct points toward notability, not WP:BLP1E. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I got h-index of 7 here. I know her official GS page (cited by David above) says 10, but several of the higher-cited papers there do not seem to have her name. Even if it is 10, then that just exceeds the conventionally borderline region for academics but it still leaves her record relatively average (e.g. the overwhelmingly highest-cited paper, Johnson et al, has >20 authors, with her name more-or-less in the middle). Rhodes, as a student award, has never been weighty toward notability, though one could quibble with that. Also, we do not conventionally count "ephemera", like a radio interview. Again, I know mine is increasingly a minority view, but multiple, archival, non-local demonstrations of accomplishment/impact/etc is what I look for. I just don't see it here...and I think this is not atypical for early-in-career academics. Agricola44 (talk) 18:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Does seem like we'd just be inclined to draw the line differently so I'll spare you belaboring my arg, but if I may ask a sourcing clarification question: when I follow your link, I don't see any h-index at all. Did you calculate it yourself or am I overlooking something? Thanks. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can just count the citation-ordered articles, for example if the citation list is: 20, 19, 6, 5, 1, then the h-index is 4 because there are 4 articles with at least 4 citations each. Agricola44 (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks! Innisfree987 (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think there are enough reliable secondary sources. Janstrugnell (talk) 08:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, She may be notable under WP:NACADEMICS-7, due to her work for the the Homeward bound leadership training programme. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 10:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If homeward bound was actually a notable entity which it isn't. LibStar (talk) 08:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has not yet the citation record to satisfy WP:Prof, but may do so one day. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Comment, from reading the conversations above, some editors may get the impression that all of the papers mentioned are WP:LOCAL. This is not the case, The Sydney Morning Herald is "the oldest continuously published newspaper in Australia and a national online news brand.[1] The newspaper is published six days a week. It is available at outlets in Sydney, regional New South Wales, Canberra, and South East Queensland (Brisbane, Gold Coast, and Sunshine Coast)." (taken from article lead). Coolabahapple (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

also, The Mercury is the main newspaper in the state of Tasmania. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, i think "Tasmania’s Young Tall Poppy of the Year in 2015 is a very minor award" is a bit harsh as its awarded by the well respected Australian Institute of Policy and Science, "minor award" would be more appropriate.:) Coolabahapple (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, but without prejudice for the future. This is a young scholar only a few years out from her PhD, and it just takes time to establish oneself in academia and the sciences. She has not published major research (not surprising for someone just starting out). I know that WP is unbalanced when it comes to women in the sciences, but it may actually do a disservice to young scholars to create articles for them here before they achieve notability, because a subject with a history of having their articles deleted may be looked on askance in the future. LaMona (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, quite a lot reliable sources.Xxjkingdom (talk) 03:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead as I'm still not convinced for substance here, because examining this still found nothing particularly convincing for the applicable notability, I'm not seeing anything else to suggest better therefore Delete is best. SwisterTwister talk 04:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, this is WP:TOOSOON. This doesn't pass GNG. The reliable, independent and secondary coverage is restricted to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald (and its reprints) and the ABC net radio talk. Both of them talk more about the program rather than the person. More importantly, the coverage is limited to one particular event, making this a BLP1E. The sources from her workplace do not count as "independent". I tried to fall back on WP:PROF but an h-index of 8 is just low at the moment. Neither has she won any notable academic award or is a distinguished prof. Delete now but no prejudice to recreating it later when she is actually notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2016 (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.