Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julieanna Preston

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Very close, but the sources added in the end would seem to tip the balance from NC to keep. ansh666 07:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Julieanna Preston[edit]

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

Julieanna Preston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:PROF. No awards, no independent coverage, and her citation record (no GS profile) seems to be in low double digits at best from what I can see, suggesting no impact. Article is mostly based on self-references/primary sources (subject's works). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For me this is an interesting test case. Is a Full Professorship a sign of "significant impact in their scholarly discipline" or a "highly prestigious academic honor" either would make it pass WP:PROF. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 10:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
    • I will note that neither the article nor any source calls her a 'full professor', just a 'professor'. I am not that familiar with Australia standards, but in most of the world, professor can refer to various lower ranks of professor career too including 'Associate Professor', a title which is used in Australia too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • In New Zealand ( the country in question) a 'professor' is a 'full professor'. We only say 'full professor' to help explain the system to people with a different terminology. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
  • Keep weighting for gender-WP:CSB is relevant here and holds a full professorship, which entails extensive academic record.--Goldsztajn (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep change to no !vote. Full Professorship means something different in Australia, and NZ. It is equivalent to Distinguished Prof rank in US. See Academic ranks (Australia and New Zealand) which explains that "Equivalent to distinguished/endowed professor in most Asian and North American universities Theredproject (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Striking my vote, per the research below that shows Massey has Distinguished Profs.--Theredproject (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the full professorship is irrelevant as you really do not know the (highly subjective) standard of the university and the tenure and advancement committee that passed her. Lots of full professors have average careers; lots of them are very notable. That said, the refs establish she has made enough of a mark in published sources to meet GNG.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep change to no 'vote'. I agree there is great variety between Full Professors (University’s and subjects etc.). I know it is not a perfect analogy, however, as editors we do not second guess the selection process for national sports teams, if they are in, they are in, regardless of their batting average. I come from a subject where citations are a good proxy for impact, this may not be so in design. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 04:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
    • @Dushan Jugum: Right, but so what makes you vote keep, if you agree that FP is not sufficient, and that her citations are also non-decisive (if I understand your comment correctly?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am saying that a board of experts think she is exceptional and then if we come in and say she is not, we might be right, but it is a kind of armchair quarterbacking we do not do elsewhere. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
        • See, at the university I work at, through not in Australia, reaching the top tier of professorship takes just time and average effort, by which I mean getting at least 'x' promotion points each year. If you cannot get even an 'x', you may be fired, but the 'x' is not that difficult. Some people will do much more than x, some will stay close the the minimum effort required, but both will become 'full professors' at the end. I looked into Massey University promotion criteria, but in the end the rules [1] don't say everything. Yes, there's a review by a 'board of experts' involved, but is it just a rubber stamp (like I believe it is at my uni) or not? The truth is we can't know, and as such, I don't believe we should put much faith in the 'long and distinguished service'. What matters is verifiable, outside standards: getting major awards and recognition from bodies that are not just promoting their members (which is why any award from university one is employed in is mostly irrelevant, as often they are again handed to everyone...), getting in-depth coverage in independent media, etc.
        • Now, on another hand, I do think we are way too inclusive for sportspeople and minor celebrities, and not enough for academics. So truth be told, I am all in favor of saying that anyone who reaches the top level of professorship in each and ever country is notable. But that should be a discussion held at WP:NPROF's talk page, and we should adjust the guideline accordingly, so articles such as that can be kept 'per the rules as written' and not 'per exceptional cases'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • The cynic in me agrees with your assessment of Professorship, though not true everywhere. I cannot verify the Massey system of promotion. A quick trawl of the Archives on the notability talk pages implies that this question is undecided. Undecided in the kind of way which implies it will never be a guideline. I have removed the Keep vote. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 07:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
            • Academic peer-review for promotion is never a rubber stamp in Australia and New Zealand - especially because of the enormous pressure from university administrators to cut costs and keep salaries low. Concur with point raised above - design is not physics, academic citations in publications are not necessarily a measure of worth, full professorship in this context is.--Goldsztajn (talk) 09:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Goldsztajn: Beware of circular logic. If citations are not a measure of worth, what is? How does the 'board of experts' decide who to promote in the field of design if the subject has few citations and no awards? In my field (sociology) citations are required for promotion. Awards help too. In some other fields grants and such help as well, but it is not like her bio right now mentions any grants. So, what makes her special, outside of having not been fired for not meeting the minimum criteria required? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • If we assume google scholar is a good representation of citations and we know that she is a Professor, then it is self-evident that in this field citations are not required for promotion to the highest level. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
                  • @Piotrus: I guess it would seem like circular reasoning if you're unfamiliar professional practice academics....--Goldsztajn (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I am still waiting for someone to tell me what makes her notable except not getting fired and getting promoted to the final tier of academic rank. Such promotions are routine in academia, in Poland, US and Korea - three countries I am familiar with - and I see no reason to conclude NZ&A are significantly different. We don't make exceptions for tenured faculty in other countries, I don't see why we should do it here. She doesn't pass WP:PROF nor WP:CREATIVE so why is she notable again? Can't we wait a bit until her peers conclude she is notable and give her an entry in Dictionary of New Zealand Biography like many other NZ academics have? That's a proper 'expert board' we can trust to make reliable, standardized decisions, not a random university promotion board. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                    • You admit you lack knowledge in the area and the region. You disparage the members of an academic institution for no discernable reason ("a random university promotion board"). There's enough information to indicate that full professorships are of a higher standard in UK/AU/NZ settings qua US/Canadian, there's no reason to assume that there is something deficient in the decision-making procedures of Massey University (rather your position makes it incumbent upon you to *verifiably* prove the opposite)... and I would reiterate that weighting here for gender is important to counter systemic bias and under-representation.--Goldsztajn (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Please keep this about content, not editors. I admit I am not an expert in Oceanic academia, but as I am a familiar (through being a professor myself) in how academia works on few other continents, it seems my credentials for this discussion are much higher than yours, since you did not disclose any. Not that either matter on Wikipedia, but if you are going to play the kettle and pot game, well. As for systemic bias, do not confuse commendable initiatives to create articles about notable women with ill-thought initiatives to create articles about women in general. Biographies have to adhere to the same standards, regardless of gender, race, or any other criteria. Wikipedia has to, sadly, reflect inequalities and such of the wider world, because our content has to be referenced properly. If you want to change the unfair world, Wikipeida is not the right social movement. Our goal is to write an encyclopedia, not to combat inequalities (except inequality in access to knowledge). See also WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Creative professionals notability: The person has created a significant collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent reviews. For example [2][3] Maybe in the arts they are judged by the art they make. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
You are mistaking the two definitions of significant: significant volume vs. significant quality and repute. All I see in those links is a book and a page with her videos on it. The video work is just republished self-publications, and not "significant" in quality and repute. If it was, we would have a lot of writing about it.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
True, my interpretation would set an unreasonably low bar. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)).
CV here ... this conversation can go on (and has), but looks to me there is no consensus for deletion. --Goldsztajn (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Three Keeps and two people who would like to keep but the rules are in the way? Will be either Keep or Keep through indecision. If my wordiness leads to a relisting I am sorry in advance(Dushan Jugum (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
Probably, through WP:NOTAVOTE. The closing volunteers can decide to ignore consensus if it would go against the rules, since WP:IAR is not a respected rule. But, through I still do not believe it has been demonstrated the subject is notable, I do concur the most likely outcome of this is going to be at least a 'no consensus' if not just 'keep', because most AfD closing won't risk getting criticized for going against the consensus, not worth their trouble :/ --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Holds a position at a very minor institution. Citation record on GS inadequate. Fails WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2019 puts Massey Uni at 501-600 of more than 1,250. It's a middle ranking university, above the median. Nurg (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All my keep arguments have been either logically deconstructed or tried and failed at the Academic Notability talk page. I find the argument that she has done notable research unverifiable (though possibly true). We should make more pages about notable people from groups other than our own, we should pay more attention when these pages go up for deletion. This has been done here. P.S. Massey is a very minor University not a very minor University as some editors would have you believe, although I can not verify that. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 08:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
  • Question 1: @Piotrus, Goldsztajn, ThatMontrealIP, Dushan Jugum, and Xxanthippe: Are we in agreement thatWP:PROF lays out 9 conditions and that profs are notable if they meet "any one of the following conditions" [emphasis in original] and condition (5) specifies that the subject meets standards if "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon" and given that in NZ or AUS 'named chairs are uncommon' and Full Prof is "Equivalent to distinguished/endowed professor in most Asian and North American universities"? --Theredproject (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Massey has distinguished professors, she is not one of them [4] (Dushan Jugum (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
  • As below, not a minor university in NZ or Pacific contexts. For context of full professorships (ie a UK professor), in the UK just less than 10% of academics are professors.--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question 2: Assuming that we are in agreement about the guidelines above (which is maybe a false assumption, but I think the guidelines are pretty clear). It appears that we are in disagreement about whether Massey University is a 'major institution of higher education and research.' Wikipedia says that "Massey University has approximately 30,883 students, 13,796 of whom are extramural or distance-learning students, making it New Zealand's second largest university when not counting international students." It is unclear to me how this is not a major institution of higher education and research. For better or for worse, it is not our job to second-guess the tenure and promotion practices at each specific institution. But it seems hard to defend the claim that a nation's ~2nd largest university is 'very minor.' --Theredproject (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I agree. But after a lifetime of making fun of Massey, it is hard to stop overnight. As AUT and maybe one day NZ polytechnics get professors, my belief in their international exceptionalism may be shaken (Dushan Jugum (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
  • In all honestly, I have not thought much about whether a university is major or not. To me, I divide them into scam-fake degree providers and 'all others', and I certainly agree Massey is not a scam degree mill. So on that, at least, I have no problems. It may not be a worldwide-famous institution, but working at such a university is certainly respectable - if not sufficient to be in an encyclopedia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After last Friday, not making fun of anything antipodean, I ❤ everything Aotearoa.--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FWIW, here's the 2017 conditions for promotion to professorship at Massey University, see in particular pages 11-13 ... pretty clearly lines up with WP:PROF... Is there any verifiable reason why the decision of the academic promotion panel at Massey should be discounted?--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per my comments above, it is hard to WP:AGF real-world guidelines like that. Too often they are just pro-forma standards that are not respected by institutions themselves. Seriously, there is a conflict of interest here: we should never trust an organization, in which direct interest it is to promote itself and its employees, to provide the sole proof that their employees (or itself) is notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • so the rebuttal I got (above) when I tried "trust the selection panel" was to go and see the Notability Academic talk page, I did. This idea has been tried their repeatedly and has failed. The absence of the rule "every full professor is notable" is not a bug but a feature.(Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 15:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For an academic in a creative field whose work is based more on artistic creation rather than scholarly writing, the key test for notability should not be citations but independently-published reviews. So where are they? I tried both news and scholar searches but didn't find any. The weakness of the case is shown by the fact that we have spent so much of the discussion in trying to carefully parse what it means to be a professor at Massey. If that's all we have, I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to vote, however this article appears Incomplete - when was this subject born? Lubbad85 (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have that information Lubbad85, you may need to take a leap of faith. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
She received her BA (Architecture) in 1983, that should give our readers some idea. We don't have a policy that says we must know a subject's date of birth. We do have WP:BLPPRIVACY that cautions against revealing information that people may consider private. Vexations (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I previously closed this as "no consensus", but on consideration I think more discussion is warranted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, Stuartyeates. That is better than I thought, however, we have no direct evidence of it being used in teaching and even less that it made "a significant impact" (Criteria 4 WP:PROF). The high number of reprints/editions seems to be a database error (13 editions in one year? and some "editions" do not have her name on them and have different title spellings etc). (Dushan Jugum (talk) 00:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
  • Note about editions: that just means that there are slight differences in the library's metadata for the books, it's not usually a separate edition as far a a publisher or retailer is concerned, this is normal, since (for example) public libraries often won't have the in-depth metadata that research libraries do. My location is New Zealand and I can see that every tertiary institution in the country that teaches design has the book, plus the local authors' local public library. Criteria 7 WP:PROF, note 2, is also relevant here, maybe. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Stuartyeates. So not 17 editions then. Also "Criterion 4 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education." WP:PROF. We have no evidence for this for even one book, we need several. 7 Note 2: "widely popular general audience books" we would need more than it is in every uni in the country. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 01:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
  • Being held in libraries is not a major achievement, some libraries subscribe to book series, etc. Is this book being used in actual teaching? Can we find syllabi discussing it or better, academic articles that cite it as a useful source, effectively saying that 'best practices in field x are to use this book'? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a 'theory reader' which is a pedagogical genre, basically a text book built by quoting other authors. It's text book. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment She may indeed be a professor (and no, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, becoming a professor in Australia and NZ does not take "just time and average effort" - there are a limited number of professorships, and a far greater number of academics at the levels of lecturer and senior lecturer; it is certainly not a routine promotion or a rubber stamp, and very few lecturers are promoted to the position of professor), but that is not the only WP:SNG she could meet. She is also an author and a performance artist. I have started finding and adding reviews of her works (eg through Ebsco Academic Search), and will try to add more, including quotes from reviews. I think there are enough for her to meet WP:CREATIVE, so this will probably be a Keep. I see that Dushan Jugum found one review, though it hasn't been added to the article yet. David Eppstein says that he didn't find any - I am not sure if he doesn't have access to those databases or discounted them. It's disappointing that the creator of the article has mainly included primary sources, rather than using the academic resources I assume they have access to through Massey Uni to locate secondary sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • [5] are certainly quality references, through AFAIK reviews of one work are more helpful for estabilishing notability of the work and not of the author (per WP:NOTINHERITED). Through of course indirectly they help to estabilish author's impact in the field, but much less so han citations. A book that got several reviews and is not cited is much less impactful then a book that got no reviews but is often cited. But that's for PROF, and as for CREATIVE here reviews are much more relevant. Alas, are the reviews you are finding reviews of her art / design pieces or of her publications? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added some more reviews of her publications, and removed references that were simply to the publications themselves. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more discussion against the sources found by Stuartyeates and RebeccaGreen.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just want to tell everyone that there is discussion underway at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) (last two sections). I see this as the only practical way of solving the wider Full Professor question. I am not saying that this is the only question here, but if she was not a full Prof. this page would be deleted by now (rightly or wrongly). (Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
    • Right. Sadly, nobody has commented in the discussion on what are the non-US equivalents of US criteria. And that is relevant here, as the claims that her position is or is not equivalent to US positions we consider notable are NOT based in any guideline or policy. We do NOT have, as far as I can tell, any written rule about notability of positions in Australia, New Zealand or in fact for most other countries. Just saying 'it's similar to US' is not really a well reasoned argument (similar how?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep same reason as above and support sources found by Stuartyeates and RebeccaGreen. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 06:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I looked into whether Preston was cited in any syllabi [6] and found an article citing her work from a PhD student at Kansas State University ([7]) and a syllabus citing her work from Parsons School of Design ([8]) among others. That said, these are citations to her involvement as an editor which means I would need to consider some amalgamate of WP:PROF criteria 4 and 8. I also don't know how involved she was as an editor, but I'm assuming her contribution was equal to that of the other editor in terms of involvement. Userqio (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on reasons give above and this article having her in the title (from fn 15) suggests to me that she is notable. It was hard for me to verify that the sources that she did not author exist -and- discuss her. If those who want a keep can provide a list of those articles she in which she is mentioned in the text of an article or book, and even better something we can verify online, I think that would make the case. If those who want a delete can show me that the references provided to her article are not legit, do not mention her or were written under her direction or some other direct involvement, then I might change my vote to a delete.
Regardless, the references (like [3]) should not be to things she authored--the article needs cleanup. I might support Draftify instead. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:55, 14 April 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Julieanna_Preston&oldid=1086071881"