Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryanne Garry

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. per WP:SNOW. Consensus is that it passes WP:PROF (non-admin closure) DBig Xrayᗙ 11:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maryanne Garry[edit]

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

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

Notability for academic not achieved. No significant impact on research, no highly prestigious award, no election to a selective society or association, does not hold a chair appointment, or a highest-level position. No substantial impact outside academia, or editor of a major academic journal, or for other fields. I posted on talk on August 20th that this page should be improved otherwise we would need to AfD it. No one responded and no edits have been made to the page since. WP:ACADEMIC Sgerbic (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as original author). Multiple pieces of her work have made popular press headlines around the world over many years including. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/body/heres-what-image-overload-is-doing-to-your-brain/ https://www.stuff.co.nz/oddstuff/85258775/NZ-and-the-Mandela-Effect-Meet-the-folks-who-remember-New-Zealand-being-in-a-different-place https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10593822 http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/08/02/male_self_citation_in_academic_work_isn_t_really_mansplaining.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/polly-campbell/power-of-suggestion_b_3398584.html https://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/our-brains-are-being-bombarded-with-digital-images-like-never-before-and-its-changing-us/ https://theconversation.com/exposed-to-a-deluge-of-digital-photos-were-feeling-the-psychological-effects-of-image-overload-52562 http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/02/false_memories_of_brian_williams_memory_experts_chabris_and_simons_tips.html https://www.odt.co.nz/lifestyle/magazine/proving-innocence https://www.npr.org/2014/05/22/314592247/overexposed-camera-phones-could-be-washing-out-our-memories https://www.sunlive.co.nz/news/185728-the-trouble-memory.html https://www.nzherald.co.nz/bay-of-plenty-times/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503343&objectid=12099822 How is this 'No substantial impact outside academia' ? Stuartyeates (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment Stuartyeates, if you have all these references, why didn't you add them to the page? 8==8 Boneso (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would just like to second that. Why would you create a stub for someone? Write it in your sandbox completely. Then show it to a couple friends for them to check your grammar and sentence flow. THEN release it. Sgerbic (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thirded, as this has been discussed on multiple other articles in this editor's attempts to add articles on a long list of NZ academic women, often with weak sourcing. If they're notable, show it before you publish it, please. JamesG5 (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that unlike WP:BEFORE (which falls squarely on User:Sgerbic), this onus doesn't fall on me. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe so, but if, as is happening here, you're continually creating articles so poorly sourced other editors feel there's an issue and you do it expecting them to pick up the work that's an issue as well. JamesG5 (talk) 02:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Surely you aren't serious Stuartyeates. If you went to the trouble of finding those references you should have added them. The page should reflect the notability of the subject. In my opinion this article is an insult to the subject. If you are going to go to the trouble of creating a page you should put your best effort into it. A quick scan of the references provided does not show that the subject's work has had 'substantial impact outside academia', only that she is a go to person for a journalist who is writing an article about memory. I hate to see BLPs like this being deleted, and I'm happy to vote with you, Stuartyeates. Perhaps you could provide me with some examples to convince me. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 03:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can we stop piling on Stuart, please? This article isn't a stub, and even if it were, they are a perfectly valid and useful way of expanding the encyclopaedia. Notability is something that editors must assess – our purpose here is to write articles, not artificially-padded collections of references to satisfy AfD. – Joe (talk) 05:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject passes multiple criteria of WP:PROF: many highly cited papers and a very high h-index for psychology show significant impact (#C1); Fellow of the Association for Psychological Science (#C3; and as the refs above show, her work has been widely covered in the press (#C7 + WP:GNG). – Joe (talk) 05:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PROF#C1, #C3 and #C7 as argued above. XOR'easter (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I added her fellow status. Meets WP:PROF as argued above. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1 and #C3 as argued above. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the page now reflects the subject's notability. Every page should reflect the subject's notability and I stand by my comments above. I despise REFBOMBING, but there is material in many of those references provided above that should be included on the page. Fair warning of this nomination was given on the talk page and I'm disappointed that the page had to be nominated for anyone to care. I'm happy that it looks like a keep, and I've put this page on my list of articles to improve. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 12:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment after five uninvolved keep votes, I invite nominator Sgerbic to save everyone time and withdraw the nomination. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Time, you have something better to do? I agree with Boneso, its a shame that it took me nominating it for deletion for people to take it seriously enough to get good content on the page. Garry deserves better than this. Sgerbic (talk) 04:16, 8 September 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.