Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denise Donnelly (2nd nomination)

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. slakr\ talk / 09:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Denise Donnelly[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Denise Donnelly (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)

I don't see the notability here. She's written a few articles and is on the editorial board of a few journals, but I don't see proof of the impact of her work in the form of citations. There's one here and one here--but the latter isn't worth a lot since that publication also reports that a body frozen in 1936 has been revived. In short, does not pass PROF or GNG. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - subject is a published author, with lengthy interview in the New York Times, and has coverage in multiple news sources. Credible sources imo. Sadfatandalone (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Published author" does not mean "notable". An "published" here doesn't even refer to monographs. For an academic to pass on journal articles alone they will need to be well-cited, and I don't see evidence of that. An interview in the NYT is not in itself enough to pass the GNG. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is also popular press coverage such as here. @Drmies: I would be curious to hear why you feel the previous discussion and closure was inadequate, since I do agree that the WP:NACADEMICS aspect is more marginal than usual. VQuakr (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The previous discussion closed in delete, so I don't understand your point. The NYT appears to be hacked by Al Qaeda or the CIA, so I can't check that link (but I note it's the blog part). I see a few more mentions (two sentences here, one sentence here, a mention in the Chicago Tribune), but it does not add up to significant discussion, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT article is a WP:NEWSBLOG by a staff author and as such is a usable source. It is an interview, not a sentence-long mention. The previous closure was a delete for the incel fork, but not for the subject of the article. VQuakr (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Publishing is what academics do, so that in itself does not make them notable. No other indications of notability. --Randykitty (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speak for yourself, Randykitty. I can't even seem to finish a revision. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right. I've been trying all day to get around reading a revision that one of my colleagues prepared... --Randykitty (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've been trying all day to get laid. I should get a mention as "Notable sufferer". Drmies (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - very superficial survey, too. If the previous result was delete - how come the article is still here, by the way? I don't wan't too be mean but it is such an insignificant research. We have all kind of part time people at the university doing all kinds of research... That is exactly what people at a university do. They are required to do this. And there are loads of people at each and every university doing this, all the time. It is just normal activity for an university... Ugh, terribly thought. Should I write an article on my examinator? Hafspajen (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Ms. Donnelly only got her own article in order for some editors to include text from the (currently deleted) involuntary celibacy article. Her only claim to notability is her writings on a phenomenon that is widely considered a fringe theory. I support the deleting this article for the same reasons I supported deleting the one on Brian G. Gilmartin and "Loveshyness" earlier this year. There seem to be a few editors who push rather aggressively for the inclusion of this material but I don't believe the sources are sufficient and the coverage is enough to establish notability beyond a small internet community of "incels". Mythic Writerlord (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This may be so, but I call 'em as I see 'em and I nominated this only because I believed the subject lacked notability. I have no comment on POV pushing or anything like that (it may or may not be true; I simply have no opinion) and have no reason to doubt VQuakr's good faith. Drmies (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As I just wrote at the DRV for the latest attempt to push incel back into Wikipedia, nothing has really changed since the last time we discussed this. Things that haven't changed include the existence of a small group of pov-pushers who want this article included, and the notability of the subject. The new draft is at least neutral and about the subject rather than acting as a soapbox as the deleted version did, but I'm skeptical that it can be maintained in that state, and anyway writing it in this way doesn't really help make the case for notability any better than the previous version did. And the fact that this was recreated on the same day as the previous AfD closed as a delete is not encouraging. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been successfully "maintained" for the last 7 months without the fringe content. As a reminder to the last few !votes, WP:AGF is policy (and you may note that I was not involved in the "incel" debacle prior to the previous AfD). VQuakr (talk) 01:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:PROF per these sources which discuss her research and seem to indicate that it has "made significant impact in their scholarly discipline": [1] [2] [3] Everymorning talk 03:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Aside from the salient points made by David Eppstein, the usual WP:PROF indicators are not quite there. Although the NYT interview helps, the other sources that have been raised are not really that substantive. For example, of the three just named named by Everymorning, two are trivial mentions and the Guardian piece appears to be something like a "dear Abby"-type letter. These are not really the fodder of WP:PROF. Citation situation also seems not to have changed much since prev AfD, e.g. h-index still 11. FYI: She seems to have been a minor contributor to a fairly important book by Murray Straus, although it's not obvious that this is the same person as our subject (I can't seem to find her page at Georgia – it's a dead link and Google does not show any other faculty page for her). Agricola44 (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: No highly prestigious academic award, not an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society, no significant impact in the area of higher education -let's add those last words too as they are stated in requirements, no named chair appointment, no highest-level elected or appointed academic post, no substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity ... not the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area, not in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art....well, nothing that is required for an academic to be notable. Hafspajen (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The three sources cited passed WP:N. It appears a large number of delete votes have ignore this and are also editors from previous AfDs regarding this subject. The NYT article citing her research is more than enough to pass WP:PROF. Valoem talk contrib 18:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong comment Please comment on the issue, not the other participants here, whether they particapated in the previous AfD (OMG they really did? That's an automatic disqualification of all those !votes then) or not. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the case. Sources provided counter claims of her lack of notability. The rational based on the prior AfD appears to be based on editor history rather than policy. To suggest that we need editors uninvolved in prior AfDs is hardly unacceptable. Valoem talk contrib 19:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're referring to the 3 sources mentioned above by Everymorning, these do not contribute to notability for the reasons i already gave. The current article has 2 sources, one of which is a dead weblink and the other the NYT piece. The problem I have here is that this one source clearly falls short of the "multiple" standard enshrined in WP:GNG. Agricola44 (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Here are some additional sources I've found:

These are just three of the multiple sources I've found regarding her research. I can only assume that this AfD was brought to light because of the current DRV in process. David Eppstein's comment at the drv suggested that the article's only support is fringe pov pushers. This could not be further from the truth. Instead to ignore 20 additional sources and two completely different versions is a concern needing attention. Valoem talk contrib 20:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dr Denise Donnelly's study of 6,029 married people in the Journal Of Sex Research found that couples were less likely to have sex if they were unhappy, had small children and didn't do much together. Well, I don't call that a revolutionary discovery. Hafspajen (talk) 09:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The HuffPost link is dead. The Guardian piece is the "dear Abby" type reader correspondence that was already discussed above. "Nerve" is a web-zine whose brief foray into print journalism failed after a few years – not sure that there's much weight here, not to mention that the article only makes a brief mention of her. The Guardian and Nerve pieces are not the type of fodder we usually take as satisfying WP:GNG or WP:PROF. I will gladly change positions if more conventional indicators are forthcoming, e.g. lots of citations or book holdings (commensurate with a high-profile area like sex research) for WP:PROF or substantive articles about her in mainstream sources for WP:GNG. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment I understand your issues with The Guardian piece, however the Nerve article is considered a secondary RS from a mainstream source. Regardless here are some additional sources for you:
Book sources
  • I'm sorry, but I still would not consider the combination of these to demonstrate notability. Aside from the pieces written by her (e.g. the Readings in Family Theory), each of these references her work, i.e. each essentially counts as a single citation. The problem is that WP:PROF basically requires that, to demonstrate notability based on "impact" (here, citations), that the numbers be substantively higher than those of the average researcher. The first AfD concluded that this was not the case for Donnelly and it seems these numbers have changed little since then. I would concur with that assessment, especially since sex research is a very high-profile area, especially outside academia, meaning that a mention or two in a HuffPost blog is not at all unusual. Agricola44 (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • These source do however, allow her to pass the WP:PROF guidelines set. There is not a requirement for her to be high-profile. The secondary sources citing her work does in fact show a scope of influence based on her research, not forgeting the NYT article. Despite our disagreement what is your opinion on this article on incel. Valoem talk contrib 18:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Valoem, Your language is biased and suggestive. Indeed, you can suggestively describe this as editors "rushing" to this AfD and then you "cannot help but notice" an "inherent bias". However, people follow links all the time. That's normal and absolutely not any indication of any inherent bias (and asserting that actually comes close to a personal attack). --Randykitty (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Randykitty, I was actually basing my comments on two comments from Drmies and David Eppstein when Drmies stated "I've been trying all day to get laid. I should get a mention as "Notable sufferer", and David Eppstein's comment on the DRV when he stated that I was rehashing old arguments without bring anything new. This could not have been further from the truth, the two versions regarding incel are completely different with the version I am restoring having an additional 20 sources. Comments based not on policy can be disheartening which is why I believed some uninvolved editors can be beneficial to this discussion. I hope this clears somethings up. Valoem talk contrib 19:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • These sources do not allow her to pass the WP:PROF guidelines set – that is the point. There's a massive corpus of AfD's that have established that conventional thresholds of "impact" of its criterion 1 are enormously higher than these few citations. I have no opinion on that "incel" article, indeed I've not even read it. We are debating this article. To redirect otherwise lends credence to the WP:COATRACK concerns expressed above. Donnelly article lives or dies on its merits alone. Agricola44 (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete: It's pretty basic: is Donnelly discussed at "significant length" in reliable sources? NOT blogs, NOT one-sentence casual mentions, NOT "Donnelly's next book discusses X," NOT quotes from her? I'm not seeing it. Done deal, fails the GNG. Nha Trang Allons! 21:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nha Trang. Notability standards are quite settled by now, debates like this one and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Pynchon (2nd nomination) over notability of a living person usually drag on when commenters fail to understand what GNG means, and none of the keep votes are grounded in policy.--Milowent • hasspoken 00:17, 18 December 2014 (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/Denise_Donnelly_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1136112633"