Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayana Jordan

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. There were strongly argued cases on both sides, but I find that the delete side is better based in guidelines, and had a better understanding of those guidelines. However, this is a marginal case and the person is quite likely to meet our notability guidelines in the future. I will happily restore the page to draft space on request.

This discussion suffered greatly from outside canvassing. This always makes the task difficult for a closer, but rarely has the desired effect. Those with little or no experience of editing Wikipedia usually do not have a deep understanding of our guidelines and I'm obliged to weight arguments according to how strongly they are policy based.

The basis of the canvassing seems to be that institutional bias on Wikipedia needs to be countered. On that you are right; there is institutional bias and we recognise that. However, it is still necessary to meet the criteria before an article can be kept. It may well be true that there are many articles on white male academics who are a lot less notable than this person. That has no bearing on how we assess the notability of this article per WP:OTHERSTUFF. Anyone may nominate all those non-notable white professors for deletion, and they too will be assessed on the same basis. SpinningSpark 09:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ayana Jordan[edit]

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

Ayana Jordan (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)

Assistant professor (MD/PHD in 2011, completed residency in 2015) who does not meet the notability standard for academics or GNG. The article itself is promotional and CV like, which reflects use of sources promoting Jordan such as https://votejordan.squarespace.com/. Eostrix  (🦉hoot hoot🦉) 08:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I am so sorry, the links to the page you mention have been removed as have the associated sentences. Other than this, she meets the notbaility criteria by a wide margin as she is the winner of many national awards (from the APA and the AMA) and she is the director of global health at yale and her research has been highly cited, and she is known in the media for her efforts to prevent a refugee from being deported from America based on mental health status and her research on Sierra leone. Please let me know if this conflicts with your ideas of notability and I am happy to discuss further. 08:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added byMicroglia145 (talk • contribs)
The awards are early career awards, I don't see how she meets any of the eight criteria in WP:NACADEMIC. Media coverage of Jordan is insufficient for WP:GNG. She certainly fits the profile of an outstanding young scientist, however that is insufficient for Wikipedia notability.--Eostrix  (🦉hoot hoot🦉) 08:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are early career awards explicitly excluded from awards considered for merit in Wikipedia? If not I do not see how an award being early career is not notable. Many early career awards are extremely prestigious and notable. These awards are not made to students, but to young excellent scientist who already hold PhDs or equivalent degrees. Npadilla5 (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC) — Npadilla5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
@Eostrix: AfD is not for cleanup, if articles are promotional and CV like, that is not a reason for deletion. Also, please see the references provided below that demonstrate why this definitely meets GNG. gobonobo + c 07:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sources provided do no establish GNG, and are mostly short interview blurbs within a larger topic.--Eostrix  (🦉hoot hoot🦉) 08:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that makes sense, but this is not the only criteria. There are many other ways she is notable. Can you speak to how she does not meet the other criteria? There are plenty of autobiographies on Wiki with lower H-indexes but the people are notable for other reasons. Let me know.
Microglia145 (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
it actually looks like she meets the criteria for notable physicians! Why don't we just go with that. Though she is more notable than most academics on Wikipedia, if we categorize her as notable physician (mostly for the awards and honors she has won) then this will be great. Let me know what I can do to remove the deletion tag and change her category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Microglia145 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of a notability guideline for physicians, it is not listed in Wikipedia:Notability (people). Her awards are early career awards and do not confer notability. She does not meet GNG.--Eostrix  (🦉hoot hoot🦉) 16:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
here is the link for doctors notability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(doctors) and her honor of being elected to the APA is literally one of the notability criteria for academics "The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers)." I realized that you do not study psychology or neuroscience, so I thought I would point out that the American Psychiatry Association (APA) is a prestigious scholarly society. I think this concludes that she meets both the basic notability criteria for a person as well as for the academic category and for this doctor category that I found. Also, she was appointed to the director of the Global Mental Health Program at Yale, this is the highest position you can have at Yale in this program. This also meets the criteria. I hope this clarifies things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Microglia145 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Microglia145, the page you linked to for Notability of doctors (physicians outside the USA) starts with a notice that this page, and presumably the criteria included, have been retired. That's probably why it's not listed as a subject specific set of criteria under Notability_(People). MoneciousTriffid (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
in addition, she meets this criteria as well "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity". based on her research on mental health stigma, she was covered in The New Yorker for her court testimony to prevent the deportation of a Sierra Leone refugee. The fact that this was covered in high impact news and that she is able to use her research on mental health stigma in Sierra Leone to impact the community and prevent deportation in this way is making a substantial impact outside of Academia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Microglia145 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet any of the existing academic notability criteria. The awards are not of the type that confer notability. The media coverage is not enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This statement seems quite unsupported since you have not listed the types of awards that pass the criteria. She has won awards and recognition from the APA, ASCP and is was an International AWP Fellow... this is an internationally recognized honor. I am confused why these national and international awards and honors are not notable? There is nothing on Wikipedia that says they are not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Microglia145 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Think it might be WP:Too soon as per Xxanthippe. Wp.Nprof isn't matched, though nearly there. If the Global Mental Health Program wasn't at Yale she would be accepted, that she has been invited to be a member of the advisory board of The Lancet does not count against nprof but is pretty notable outside of wikipedia rules. Apa is not an elected membership so does not meet this rule.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Her APA membership was elected though as per this APA link https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/awards-leadership-opportunities/leadership-opportunities/elections/2018-apa-election-results — Preceding unsigned comment added by Microglia145 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But its the organisation she belongs too. To be a member of a royal society you are nominated by a member and then voted by the membership to allow entry, which meets the rules. APA is not a such organisation, all you have to do is pass a residency test as per their own website.if she was voted to chair she would be notable. That's why I have not voted as I think she is close to notability. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is a very low h-index and insufficient individually cited article to support keep. I don't see much else. I've posted another women in a similar position, low h-index and barely any citations. There is not much else. scope_creepTalk 20:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is H-index a necessity for an academic? If not for the H-index, she would meet the criteria, right due to her APA election and Lancet Editor position and being awarded an International Fellow of the AWP? It seems that she would meet the "General" notability criteria as well as the "Physician" notability criteria (which I just found recently, not sure if this is new?). Is there a way to change the "identity" of the article such that it is a general biography or a physician biography? It feels flawed that someone might be notable enough in other regards (excluding H-index) but then not be able to have a page?
Microglia145 (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep .Despite having a low h-index I agree with the page writer here in that the impact of her research in society and awards should be weighted for notability. Npadilla5 (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All the h-index hand wringing above completely ignores the fact that the subject most assuredly meets WP:BASIC. A google search shows that this Yale professor has had loads of significant coverage related to her substance abuse work (NBC News, WBUR), on her methadone patients (Vice) and the role of telemedicine during the pandemic (MedPage Today), methadone precriptions (Lancet), the effect of cannabis on the brain [1], and whether people are getting high on wasp spray. (Inverse) She sits on the board of trustees of the American Psychiatry Assocation [2], studied mental health in Sierra Leone (The New Yorker), is medical director of one of Yale's training programs [3], and is principal investigator for Imani Breakthrough Recovery. ([4]) She also recently received media coverage for her role in SharetheMic (NBC News, Shape) and her opinion on the George Floyd protests. (Newsweek) All together, these multiple independent sources demonstrate notability. gobonobo + c 07:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Those links do not establish GNG, they are mostly just short interview blurbs within a larger piece and are not about Jordan. Throwing every single link, as you have, in which Jordan is devoted a one or two paragraph quote among quotes by other experts, is not GNG. The only link there of any depth is by her employer announcing an Special Instagram Live Session.--Eostrix  (🦉hoot hoot🦉) 07:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's twice that you've cherry-picked the weakest source then claimed it represented the whole. These sources establish GNG, and even if they didn't , per BASIC, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. gobonobo + c 22:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at the guidelines for notability in academics and it does seem to me that the subject does meet both (3) "The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor..." as well as (7) "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" based on the information shared above by Gobonobo.SevennRosess (talk) 05:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC) — SevennRosess (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Just to be clear, the sourcing listed above also demonstrates "substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" (WP:NACADEMIC#7). As an elected member of the APA board I think she also likely meets WP:NACADEMIC#3. gobonobo + c 19:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am confused why h-index is being brought up so much in this discussion, when the guidelines in WP:PROF clearly state that citation measures such as the h-index are of limited use in determining whether someone meets the notability criteria. I am in agreement with the above users who believe this subject meets notability criteria, for the reasons they have articulated. DK.Sci (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The h-index is a standard and frequent way for us to measure academic impact and passage of WP:PROF#C1. What the guidelines should say to more accurately reflect our practice is that even though we often use the h-index we should use it with great care, because the standards vary from field to field and because it doesn't work well in some fields. In this case the field is psychiatry, it is a field where citations are relevant, and in it citation numbers tend to be large. So we can factor that in when judging that her citation numbers are relevant and are not large enough to pass WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
H-index doesn't seem like the best indicator in this case, since the subject is having impact on the field at an earlier career stage than usual (see: https://publons.com/blog/5-things-the-h-index-cant-tell-you/). There are more leadership roles than I would expect for an asst prof, particularly heading the global public health program and the APA leadership role. Unusual for early stage, and speaks to reputation and impact. The topic also doesn't usually get as many citations as other fields, so H-index seems to be a less accurate measure of impact than usual. Nicotinian (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC) — Nicotinian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Well, saying that h-index isn't a good indicator in this case is one thing, but saying that her citations are impactful is another, and that needs evidence. Early-career leadership roles are not evidence of impact. Working in a subtopic that gets fewer citations is not evidence of impact. All the talk of h-index here amounts to the fact that the standard ways of providing evidence of impact do not show it in her case. We can interpret that as meaning that she does not have impact, or we can interpret it as meaning that the impact exists but is not measured by those standard ways, but the outcome is the same: without evidence we can't keep the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is trying to say she is notable because of her high citation rate. The question is whether she meets WP:NACADEMIC#7 or the basic criteria of WP:BIO, which I would argue she does with the national news coverage and as a boardmember of the APA. gobonobo + c 08:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . Because Jordan has been quoted in many national news sources, including (NBC News, NBC News, Newsweek), to name a few, she meets WP:PROF criteria 7: The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. --Gggg2123 (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . I added the citation on her contributions to the COVID-19 pandemic telemedicine efforts. Her coverage on MedPage Today is another indication of her notability. ([5]), she meets WP:PROF criteria 7: Lihao881230 (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC) — Lihao881230 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep . I would like to add that Jordan is featured in ShapeNews[1] for her contributions to the #ShareTheMicNowMed campaign to address race-related issues in medicine and she used this platform to disseminate her research and clinical work on de-stigmatizing substance use disorders. KrispyKreme90 (talk) 23:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC) — KrispyKreme90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep . Jordan has been quoted in a variety of national new sources listed above. Most notably, her work in Sierra Leonne and advocacy referenced in the New Yorker, as well as being director of various outreach and rehabilitation initiatives would fall under WP:PROF criteria 7. Professor Jordan is a highly respected member within academic circles both within Yale and at an international level. Additionally, her awards seem to suggest they would be prestigious enough to meet criteria 2 of WP:PROF as well. Myliobatiforme (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC) — Myliobatiforme (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment. Because of several keep votes with slender edit records this AfD should be closed by an experienced administrator. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep I want to stress that those !@##$ who make these proposals should be ashamed. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @GerardM: unlike some others here, yours is not a new account. So you should need no reminding that personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith are forbidden here. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @David Eppstein: I did not use any swear words, I did express my opinion of the people who are so detrimental to what Wikipedia should stand for. That is not bad faith that is not a personal attack that is expressing revulsion. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – if/how relevant a person is, is not up for us to judge, but should be judged by the reader, in a neutral enclopeadia. Asking to close the AFD because you don't like the results till now, is not what should happen in a neutral encyclopedia. Edoderoo (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Edoderoo: I'm sorry, but it is up to debate. Under current community guidelines, we can't have pages about every single living person. thisbugisonfire (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is significant media coverage https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ayana+Jordan%22&safe=off&client=firefox-b-1-d&tbm=nws&sxsrf=ALeKk00aLd3dxBme-x4ju-2UmpVeV95EBQ:1593518862073&ei=Div7Xq-KBMGvkwXG6pvwDQ&start=0&sa=N&ved=0ahUKEwivyd2twKnqAhXB16QKHUb1Bt44FBDy0wMIPQ&biw=1408&bih=688&dpr=1.36 Lainx (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per above and her coverage in various national news outlets. However, I am concerned about that Twitter thread previously posted, one user wrote: "A great way to make change is to establish a Wikipedia account and begin contributing yourself. My DMs are open for those who want to learn how!" That cannot lead to anything good given our WP:MEAT policies with respect to this article and its AfD. Donna Spencertalk-to-me⛅ 18:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • We should be encouraging new editors, not biting them. But we should be encouraging them to work on articles about clearly-notable underrepresented people, not borderline cases like this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.shape.com/lifestyle/mind-and-body/share-the-mic-now-med-campaign-black-female-doctors. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  • Weak keep I think there's just enough to make the argument for WP:PROF#C7 (impact outside academia in an academic capacity). There's more than just brief quotations from a local talking head; they describe substantial work, though not in as much detail as I'd like to see. XOR'easter (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per comments by Gobonobo and DK.Sci, I think she clearly meets WP:BASIC. That's the question at hand here. Cheers! Coffeespoons (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: When considering the strength of the arguments that have been presented, this appears to be a close call. Allow for more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist; you can't silence us 13:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . Subject has been quoted in many US national news sources. Meets WP:PROF criteria 7: The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkoala (talk • contribs) 22:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . Subject is cited and interviewed in multiple national media outlets. Cursory search of her name in Google yields multiple recent interviews and quotes in NBC news, Shape, and Newsweek. Meets WP:PROF criteria 7: The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. She also may meet criteria 3 due to her position on the board of trustees of the American Psychiatric Association, and she sits on the editorial board for the Lancet Psychiatry.Saxophone4 (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC) — Saxophone4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep She seems to have received significantly more coverage than an average academic, enough for an article. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 18:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The number of WP:SPA here is alarming, could this discussion be cleaned of the clutter or restarted? thisbugisonfire (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's no sign of WP:NPROF C1, although it's a solid start for this assistant professor. The awards are strictly early career, given more for promise than for achievement, so no WP:NPROF C2. No signs of C3-C6, and C8 is only for chief editors. C7 essentially says that GNG applies to professors (and their work). As far as GNG goes, I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources here, although there are several passing mentions. I expect that the subject will eventually become notable, but it's WP:TOOSOON for now. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for not meeting any of the eight criteria for WP:NACADEMIC. No doubt that Jordan has an active commitment to social crises but the article does not present academic accomplishments such as chairing a department, authorship of peer reviewed publications, or having a significant and notable impact outside of the academic setting. No awards or election to membership in a scholarly society. Blue Riband► 01:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since the person fails the criteria for WP:NACADEMIC. While there are mentions of the person in a lot of places, but my scanning over of them, and the rigorous discussion about it, lead me to believe everything on them is merely brief mentions. It seems to soon to say what impact if any the person will have in academic circles also. As a disclaimer, I'd say the same for any "over privileged white male" if everything was the same. While I agree with some people here that there is an inherent bias in how notable women are discussed in sources, I don't feel that it's on us to bend the notability guidelines because of it. It's unfortunate, but it's not like the article can't be recreated once the systemic issues are dealt with if they ever are and there is enough sourcing on her to pass WP:NACADEMIC. In the time though, I'm not voting keep based on some hackneyed reasoning like "if it wasn't for sexism this person would totally be notable" or "People who vote delete are doing it because they are sexist. So she be kept because of sexism. Anyone that disagrees with me is a sexist over privileged white male and that's all there is on Wikipedia. i'LL SHOW YOU BY POSTING ABOUT IT ON MY BLOG SCREEEEEEE!!" Christ, seriously. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She seems to have enough coverage, and appears to be attaining more over time. I don't think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON, she's won a fair bit of reputable awards and has attracted significant coverage in reputable, recent sources in her work. She meets the WP:PROF criteria as well as WP:NACADEMIC#7 and the basic criteria of WP:BIO. The H-index measure doesn't really tell the full story here; she passes the WP policies and characteristics needed as well as retaining significant coverage in reputable sources. Heyoostorm (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to say, this is an incredible level of canvassing. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2020 (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/Ayana_Jordan&oldid=1142171374"