Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan M. Dray

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. Consensus is that she meets WP:PROF (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Susan M. Dray

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

I had originally put this up for speedy deletion, but the author came in and added sources. This said, the sources provided are all biographical sources and at least one article that the subject has written. My assertion is that this is not demonstrating notability as per WP:GNG and the sources are insufficient as per WP:RS. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have retracted the speedy deletion on the basis that more has been added, but the sources are yet questionable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Author: I am still not sure why this user thinks the sources are "questionable"? There are lesser traces of this person online and so these are the best sources I could find. In addition, could he please elaborate as to which exact sources are deemed "questionable", most of them are directly from organization's websites and the person's official CV. Once he does, I will go through each one of them to prove their reliability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumarsh6 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kumarsh6: They are unreliable exactly because they are from the person's CV. Fails WP:RS/SPS, w.r.t. "the article is not based primarily on such sources." deadwikipedian (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CVs are allowable for factual and uncontroversial information about the subject (like her education and employment history). They do not contribute to notability, but in cases such as this one, notability is based on the criteria of WP:PROF, not on the availability of sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article seems blatantly advertorial, with peacock words like "...an experienced American HCI...". If kept, it would need to be rewritten to be encyclopedic and comply with WP:BLPSTYLE deadwikipedian (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:RS. The article is primarily based on selfpublished sources. deadwikipedian (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too many sources that are actually articles written by her, not establishing notability. Other sources that are not independent from the subject matter. WP:GNG is the bar, and I don't see this passing it. Any BLP should have at least a few rock solid sources and this doesn't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Author: I have made numerous edits, please review them and let me know if the problem still exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumarsh6 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It does not, Kumarsh6. Please read up on our general notability guidelines, then turn your attention to our notability guidelines (more to the point than GNG) as well as our reliable sources guidelines - then focus on verifiability. If you need a "sanity check" on your work, that's fine - but please don't just find stuff, throw it up there, and hope for the best, because often times that still won't make the grade! --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notable if this is who I think it is. Susan Dray has a GScholar h-index of 17 and a total of 3343 cites including four works with 890, 791, 486 and 137 cites respectively. That passes WP:PROF. James500 (talk) 03:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF. That's her. Hmlarson (talk) 07:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In light of the info James5000 has posted, I'm changing my opinion to keep. Passes WP:PROF, article has been updated so that doesn't violate WP:RS completely deadwikipedian (talk) 07:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF. The article (like most) could be improved. StrayBolt (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ACM Fellow is a clear pass of WP:PROF#C3, along with the pass of #C1 discussed above. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PROF#C1 and WP:PROF#C3 as argued above. The remaining problems (e.g., instances of overly promotional language) can be fixed in the normal course of editing. XOR'easter (talk) 14:46, 5 April 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.