Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marie-Lucie Tarpent

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 no consensus. Opinions are divided about whether the subject is notable, with some turning to standard metrics and others highlighting what they consider her significant contributions to linguistics. These are all valid arguments, and therefore the article is kept by default for lack of consensus to delete. Sandstein 18:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marie-Lucie Tarpent[edit]

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

Non-notable academic. Clearly does not meet WP:PROF. <100 Google hits. Scopus lists a total of one academic article to her name (published in 1997 and has only six citations). According to the talk page, the article was pure COI. It was created by one of her friends and has been extensively edited by Tarpent herself. Bueller 007 (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Additionally, the article is circularly sourced all with subject's own papers/chapters. Agricola44 (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to admit that I also used to think that people not much more accomplished than the subject here were notable, but I have come to see they are not. When I first created the article on Camille Fronk Olson, she had published more academic papers than the subject here, and had also authored multiple books, but that article was deleted, and it took her adding more to her publication record for it to return.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Scopus is of no use in this subject area. Tarpent has quite a few publications coming up on a google scholar search. – Uanfala (talk) 13:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO. AuthorAuthor (talk) 08:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citation counts in Google Scholar are too low for WP:PROF#C1 and no other form of notability is evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think an area like Tsimshianic linguistics is wont to generate citation counts of the magnitude usually seen in more popular fields. Notability of academics is evaluated relative to their field, right? – Uanfala (talk) 13:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - To a point, but the smaller the pond one considers the bigger the fish would have to be to be considered notable. Otherwise anyone could be considered notable, by being the authority in the specific subject of their own research. And Tsimshianic linguistics seems like a pretty small pond to me. I'd rather compare her to linguists considered more broadly. And given how easy it is in linguistics to find papers that individually have thousands of citations, hers just don't stack up. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Browsing the sources out there, it seems clear that the page is reasonably accurate. I found a report written by Susan Marsden, who seems to be a curator at the Museum of Northern British Columbia and so was being consulted as an authority. This states that "Marie-Lucie Tarpent, a linguist who works with the southern Tsimshian at Kitasoo and with the Nisga’a, has contributed significantly to the understanding of the language and the importance of morphemes (the component words that make up most words)." I consider that this is adequate to pass WP:NACADEMIC, which states "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed". When athletes are routinely permitted pages just for showing up on the sport field, we should not set the bar higher for respectable scholars. The page should be permitted to remain for further development per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I mostly agree with Andrew D.'s assessment above. She seems to be notable in her narrow field of linguistics. I concur with Uanfala that citation metrics are not the best criteria to be used in this case. From WP:Academic "Arguing that someone is an expert in an extremely narrow area of study is, in and of itself, not necessarily sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1, except for the actual leaders in those subjects." She may fall under that last portion of criterion 1. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous studies (like AA studies, women's studies, etc.) have been growing rapidly in the last several decades. It is most certainly not a narrow area of study. Agricola44 (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is noteworthy WP:PROF is a guideline and it should be weighed with common sense. There's really exception here. A person described as authority in a particular discipline by reliable sources such is enough to o merit an article in a truly educational encyclopedia. Ammarpad (talk) 14:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The last 3 "keeps" have been tendered on the basis of a standard academic flourish ("contributed significantly") in an unpublished report by someone whose affiliation I cannot find. This is far short of what we typically accept for PROF c1. Agricola44 (talk) 21:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROF is not a rigid rule; it's a guideline and states explicitly that "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". Andrew D. (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, you maintain that the opinion of an apparently amateur historian expressed in a single, unpublished work, with no other corroborating RS is enough to convince you that this person is notable? Agricola44 (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

" Amateur historian"?! this is not surprising for someone who expressed WP:JNN-like delete argument. Academic like this will not get scooped by journalist for every immense underground work they do for human literature like how they'll do when really amateur musician posts "hi" on Twitter. That's why WP:PROF is guideline and common sense will tell us not stick to array of sources but the quality of their content, the impact and academic authority the subjects enjoys. –Ammarpad (talk) 03:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find your argument to be inscrutable. Are you saying that the report by Marsden has appeared as a peer-reviewed publication? After looking a fair bit, I could not find any material vouching for the reliability of this document. If you have more info, please share. Otherwise, you and the other "keeps" are basing your !votes on a single, unreliable source. Agricola44 (talk) 03:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Thsmi002. Agricola44 is being obtuse in response: she is an actual leader in her extremely narrow field for the purposes of that guideline. I find it a bit ludicrous to try to claim that a linguist specialising in very specific languages is really specialising in "indigenous studies" (er, no) for the purposes of trying to end-run WP:PROF. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not be rude to a respected and experienced editor by calling her obtuse. The editor has a long record at academic Afds and knows policy in that area probably as well as anybody. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I beg your pardon. Each broad intellectual topic has numerous specialties, which have numerous sub-specialities, and so on down the line. For example a person working on E₈ applied to theoretical physics would be called a "physicist" and would likely be found in a department of physics. We could, for almost any intellectual, commit the fallacy of continuing to sub-divide a field of study in order to drill down to a sufficiently specialized area to be able to then claim that "she is an actual leader in her extremely narrow field". By definition, most academics do indeed "specialize" in this context, and would therefore be notable using your (fallacious) argument. This particular person has worked on a specific indigenous language, which is certainly a part of both linguistics and indigenous studies, both of which are well-established academically. (If you doubt the second claim, consider that numerous institutions have established departments of indigenous studies and there are numerous dedicated journals on the topic.) It is true that these are not highly-cited areas (having commensurately higher inclusion bars) like applied physics or molecular biology, but Tarpent's research impact (record available in GS) is very mediocre, even by the lowest of standards. A paper from 1983 has 17 citations and one from 1997 has 23. The rest are single digits. The article is mostly sourced with Tarpent's own works, her CV, a grant application (for which she was not the PI), an unrefereed report, etc. General web searching turns up nothing more than facebooky-type hits, faculty pages, etc., but no general coverage (like in newspapers) that would qualify her under GNG. Finally, WorldCat shows holdings of her print books to be in the single digits. So, you might comment on which of these aspects renders her notable. Agricola44 (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Prof. Unfortunately the farthest I can stretch the GS h-index is 6, which is inadequate even for an obscure field. Thanks to Andrew D [1] for drawing attention to this AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep -- linguistics is a low-cited field, but Google books bring up enough mentions to indicate that the subject is considered an expert in the field link. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subject's entries in Google books are of material written by the subject, not about her by others and the link you give are just of people acknowleging help. They don't count as citations. Citations are not necessarily small in linguistics, Noam Chomsky has over 100,000 GS citations, the subject has less than 100. Looks like a WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe: Chomsky is widely regarded as the most influential living intellectual in any field and is explicitly described in our article as "one of the most cited scholars in history". He's probably not the most useful point of comparison. Also, the subject of this AfD is a 76-year-old retired professor, so I'm not sure when you'd be expecting WP:TOOSOON to expire? – Joe (talk) 11:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to be charitable, but I guess WP:Too soon has expired already. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, I count maybe ~40 individual citations and acknowledgements (the latter which don't count). This is very mediocre and pushing to classify her area as "very narrow" and therefore a low-enough-citation-area that we should exempt this case from standards is basically special pleading. Citations, whether in books, journals, or conf papers are counted individually and equally...and low double-digits over a many-decades career simply does not disntinguish Tarpent from the "average professor". Agricola44 (talk) 04:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Largely per the comments of Agricola44. Looks like she fails WP:NACADEMIC and she definitely looks to fail WP:GNG. While we have to be very careful not to just look at an academic's citation count and H-index before deciding whether they are notable, we also can't just say "it's a small field" and ignore their publication record. Are there any independent secondary sources that actually discuss Tarpent and her impact on her field in any depth? And we have to be careful here, if we define an academic's "field" narrowly enough then nearly all academic researchers would pass criteria 1 of WP:NACADEMIC. One sentence in one report doesn't meet a reasonable threshold in my opinion. -- Shudde^talk 09:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Linguistics is not that small a field, that there wouldn't be some coverage, re: trade magazines, awards and honours (medals), professional qualifications, professional bodies, institutes, academies, associations etc, paper's and so on. scope_creep (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As a linguist, after looking carefully into some of Tarpent's published works, I believe she has made significant contributions to the analysis of the Nishka and Gitskan languages which cannot be found in other studies. Even if these languages are not considered to be on the same level as those covered by Chomsky, her biography therefore deserves to be included in the encyclopaedia.--Ipigott (talk) 12:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The personal opinions of editors count for little unless supported by independent sources and there are too few of them here. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I offered my "opinion" after adding to the article. The article and its references have developed considerably since it was tagged. In any case, I still maintain the main role of an encyclopaedia is to be informative, in line with the views of Andrew Davidson.--Ipigott (talk) 11:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The references are still mostly her own works and websites and such. Equally problematic, none of the usual indicators for passing PROF are there, as explained above. Your justification seems to boil down to, as you said, "I believe..." Agricola44 (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:IAR. Yes, there's no way this can be stretched to a pass of WP:PROF or any other SNG. But the purpose of notability guidelines are to help us decide which topics we can write good encyclopaedia articles about. And looking it this page, I see a good encyclopaedia article. Thanks to Queen-washington, Thsmi002, and Ipigott, it's an informative biography of a scholar who made significant contributions to linguistics, primary sources are used appropriately, and it violates none of our core content policies. Deleting it would be a detriment to the encyclopaedia, so why delete it? – Joe (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You answered your own question with your observation "there's no way this can be stretched to a pass of WP:PROF or any other SNG". I would submit that all the recent keeps are nothing more than editor POVs. Agricola44 (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROF states plainly at the outset that it should be "treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." I reckon that the subject passes criterion #1 but this might otherwise reasonably be considered one of those exceptions. Andrew D. (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do agree that notability is a valid concern and I understand why Bueller 007 nominated the article as he found it. But we're not here to apply rote rules, we're here to write an encyclopaedia, and against the odds this has been turned into a decent encyclopaedia article. Put another way, can the delete !voters point to anything that is actually wrong with the article, other than the fact it doesn't meet the letter of WP:PROF? Which, let's remember, is a guideline. – Joe (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF, which is a flawed guideline when it comes to fields other than hard sciences and fails to take into account citation and publishing biases,[2], [3], but nonetheless in this case supports maintaining the article. She was chair of the department of languages at Mount Saint Vincent University.[4], [5]. This, this and this are works not by the author, which discuss her work and could be used to improve the article. SusunW (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SusunW: Getting a bit off topic, but I think it would be a good idea to incorporate those biases into the guideline. WP:PROF#Citation metrics does make reference to disciplinary differences but it's rather vague and out of date. – Joe (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2018 (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.