Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Dziedzic

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 delete‎. I hope that in the future, this scholar meets our Academic standards for notability but the clear consensus here today is to Delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Dziedzic[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Anna Dziedzic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet notability guidelines for academics. Talk page cites an award as fulfilling notability criteria. The award in question is for the best student paper at a conference, and as such is not a "highly prestigious academic award" for the purposes of WP:ACADEMIC. The article includes no secondary sources. Optimah (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The Richard Hart Prize is an award for the best paper from an emerging scholar at a biennial conference jointly hosted by Cambridge and the University of Melbourne, two of the best law institutions on the planet. This is a highly prestigious academic award on any fair assessment. Jack4576 (talk) 07:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The award was presented to her personally at the conference by Lord Mance, for goodness sake, while he was deputy president of the UK Supreme Court. This is probably the most prestigious award an early career common law law scholar can possibly receive.
You would be hard pressed to find an award more prestigious in this field. Feel free to let me know if you find one.
In the meantime, if this deletion goes ahead; this is yet another example of Wikipedia exercising its systemic biases against early career female academics. Patently disgraceful nomination and shame on you all who have voted delete on this one.
(SusunW, I am not canvassing you here, please don't vote, but just highlighting another example of an AfD where an overly strict application of guidelines is affecting systemic representation on this site. SIGCOV is a disgrace in practice) Jack4576 (talk) 08:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jack, as I've told you before, feel free to create your own online encyclopedia with any notability criteria you choose. You could even be the sole admin and have final say on deletion of any articles LibStar (talk) 08:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I. Am. Arguing. Under. Wikipedia's. Own. Notability. Guidelines.
Please. Read. WP:ACADEMIC. Criterion. Number. Two. Jack4576 (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the last few days/weeks you have been whinging about how the encyclopedia is not right and is not retaining information. You've even invented your own criteria in AfDs to establish notability. Could you imagine how much enjoyment you'd have if you ran your own online encyclopedia with your own rules? LibStar (talk) 09:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my esteemed fellow, your remarks sing to me like a lark at dawn - delightful, if somewhat dissonant. I confess I have been a thorn in the side of complacency, a bee in the bonnet of unexamined consensus, yet, is not such fervor the lifeblood of our endeavor?
I am accused of inventing criteria for AfDs. Surely, you jest! I do not invent, dear colleague; I merely illuminate the unseen, undusting the corners of our understanding, for are we not all seekers of truth in this grand academic arena?
As for the suggestion of running my own encyclopedia - what an enchanting notion! But alas, it lacks the robust melee of intellects, the crucible of challenge that we so heartily enjoy here. It is not power, but the pursuit of truth that quickens my pulse.
I assure you, dear friend, your admonishments serve only to fan the flames of my resolve. It is in our earnest disagreements that the finest facets of our shared undertaking are polished to brilliance. Thus, I will carry on, not as a stubborn mule, but as a dedicated steward of our shared wisdom. Jack4576 (talk) 10:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it was also not a best 'student paper' it was best PhD thesis. She was later awarded her doctorate on the basis of the paper she won the award for. The premise of this nom is mistaken. Jack4576 (talk) 08:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have evidence that the University of Melbourne is one of the best law institutions on the planet? LibStar (talk) 08:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
University of Melbourne: QS World Rankings #6, Times Higher Education #5
Cambridge: QS World Rankings #3, Times Higher Education #2
This info just one Google away LibStar Jack4576 (talk) 09:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Graduate-level awards are explicitly discounted by NPROF: awards and honors for academic student achievements (at either high school, undergraduate or graduate level) do not qualify under Criterion 2 and do not count towards partially satisfying Criterion 1. JoelleJay (talk) 02:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - based on my source review, it seems too soon to support notability according to relevant guidelines for a "postdoctoral fellow in comparative constitutional law at Melbourne law school" (Guardian, Jan. 2023). WP:NPROF#2 includes, "awards and honors for academic student achievements (at either high school, undergraduate or graduate level) do not qualify under Criterion 2 and do not count towards partially satisfying Criterion 1", so winning an early-career award for a PhD thesis seems specifically excluded by this language, but also generally by Criterion 2 when read as a whole, which identifies "major academic awards" and "a high level of academic prestige" as indicators of support for notability. Dziedzic has been quoted as an expert in e.g. ABC AU (2022), Stuff (2022), NYT (2022), Stuff (2022), Guardian (2022), SCMP (2022), Guardian (2021), but this seems insufficient to demonstrate substantial impact per WP:NPROF#7 and insufficiently sustained as well as lacking sufficient depth per WP:BASIC. She has also published a book, titled Foreign Judges in the Pacific and in January 2022 discussed co-editing The Cambridge Handbook of Foreign Judges on Domestic Courts. [1] (which was since published). In the databases I have access to at the WP Library, I see a few sources referencing her book, but no reviews to support WP:NAUTHOR. Beccaynr (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What about WP:BIO? Might the sources above, collectively assessed, amount to SIGCOV under those guidelines? Jack4576 (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    also, I think it was for her thesis, but the award may have actually instead been for ‘work by an early career scholar’ for her book on pacific island judges
    In that case it wouldn’t have been a student award
    Cant find the source to confirm Jack4576 (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Found one, here is a tweet from Adrienne Stone showing that the award was for ‘best paper by early career scholar’
    and so was not for her student thesis
    (link to tweet) Jack4576 (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BASIC and WP:NAUTHOR are WP:BIO guidelines, and there does not appear to be sufficiently sustained, in-depth support for notability according to these guidelines at this time. Her book on pacific island judges was published in 2021 so it does not seem possible for her to have received a 2018 award for the book. In a 2022 interview, she says "This book grew from my PhD research, which I completed at Melbourne Law School in 2019." It appears she won an award for work completed while she was a student, and we also cannot, regardless of how we parse the specific language, consider the award to confer "a high level of academic prestige" or to be a "major academic award", due to the nature of the award (i.e. "early career") and a lack of secondary support to indicate that this award is 'major' or 'prestigious.' Beccaynr (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A prize for the best paper at a conference is hardly ever going to be the kind of award that WP:PROF#C2 asks for. Look at the examples listed there: we're talking Guggenheim up to MacArthur, Fields, and Nobel. This holds true whether the author of the paper is a student, a postdoc, professor, whatever. XOR'easter (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing I have to say to that, is this scholar's field is constitutional law particularly in the common world
    There isn't a 'Fields', or 'Nobel' for this area of scholarship
    In the absence of those, this is a relatively outstanding award that a scholar in this niche interest could possibly receive; best paper at a regular, biennial, an international conference on Public Law, attended by scholars of various faculties in the common law world; hosted by two of the strongest universities Jack4576 (talk) 09:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    C#2 may include "honors and prizes of notable academic societies", e.g. the Australian Academy of Law has an elected fellowship. Beccaynr (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, would not the CCCS (Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies) count?
    It is an academic society for constitutional law academics globally; with fellows across Australia, Asia, South America, and elsewhere. It’s a constitutional law society of international scope and renown, and a large reason why Melbourne Law School as its host receives so many academic citations
    This is the academic society that ran the biennial CCCS conference and thus gave Anna her prize. As a constitutional law academic, there really isn’t anything better in her field than this
    Jack4576 (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    An elected fellowship in a notable academic society (e.g. Australian Academy of Law, an NGO) tends to be selective and based on a distinguished career; we can review the admission criteria to help determine whether it supports C2 notability (compare e.g. the International Association of Constitutional Law, which appears to only offer membership for a fee).
    I do not think the C2 guideline anticipates including an early career scholar prize awarded for a paper at a CCCS conference as the equivalent of the more selective and well-known awards and honors listed as examples. The Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies is part of Melbourne Law School - it does not appear to be an academic society; it describes itself as "one of the Law School's specialist research centres." Beccaynr (talk) 14:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    An elected fellowship in a society like the AAoL would definitely be better than a "best paper" award. So would a named chair. XOR'easter (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per excellent analyses above. Does not meet NPROF or GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 02:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've looked, but I can't substantiate a case for passing the guidelines for academics or those for authors. It's possible that the situation may change, e.g., if she publishes a second book and both receive some substantial reviews. I don't like to see biographies of women go, but any standard that would allow this page to pass would be a standard that allows countless men to use Wikipedia as LinkedIn. XOR'easter (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You could vote IAR on the basis she's a prominent female academic in her field Jack4576 (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    First, this is not a vote. Second, if there were evidence that she is actually prominent, I wouldn't have to ignore any rules to say so. XOR'easter (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not using the word 'vote' to imply that AfD discussions are decided by poll.
    There is evidence she's prominent, in her niche legal field; its just not good enough for the text of NACADEMIC or GNG as written.
    Yet another manifestation of the reason why Wikipedia lacks credibility in formal academic institutions, to be frank with you.
    I agree with the fact that you are applying the guidelines as written, arguably, hence the resort to IAR. Jack4576 (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless our consensus radically changes, we almost never keep untenured professors per the PROF test. An early-career award is almost irrelevant. Many law students edit a law review (as I did); it is evidence of notability as an attorney, but virtually all law professors were on law review. Bearian (talk) 17:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't analogous to editing a law review. Jack4576 (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Beccaynr.—Alalch E. 21:53, 21 May 2023 (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/Anna_Dziedzic&oldid=1156248277"