Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diana Schaub
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 Keep (non-admin close). RMHED (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Diana Schaub[edit]
Procedural nomination. Article was an overturned speedy from DRV. It is unclear if the article passes WP:PROF. No sources at the moment. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep clearly notable via WP:PROF [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. JJL (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Unquestionably she's not notable as an academic: the author of a single book in a field where books establish notability is not a notable scholar. Besides that, she's published about 20 articles almost entirely in the The Public Interest & The National Interest, which are not peer-reviewed academic journals. One book and 2 or 3 peer-reviewed articles does not pass WP:PROF on any imaginable basis. [8] Reasonable enough; the chairman of a department at a medium-small college is not necessarily a notable academic. However, the President's Council on Bioethics is probably significant enough to make its members notable as political figures. Many of the people appointed are notable otherwise, though not all of them are. Some of the information in the third item referred to should be incorporated in the article, but it is not a RS--there should be usable news reports--there is a controversy involved in her appointment. I've marked the article for NPOV. We can't judge this as science, but as politics. DGG (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep, notable from work on a national government advisory board - Dumelow (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DGG, unlikely to pass WP:PROF, but there is a public interest in having articles on members of the Bioethics Council, and certainly we can source the article. Should be under BLP scrutiny though, Prof. Schaub seems to have strong views, so the article might attract POV editing. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I felt the Bioethics Council met Criterion 6 of WP:PROF. It's an honor to be appointed by the president to a council (whose members are described as "leading scientists (etc.)") where one will advise the president; it isn't as though she was hired into it as a job. JJL (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Criterion 6 is bit of a slippery slope, as there are many awards and honors that are by no means notable (just look at the back page of my CV). But yeah, I agree the the brunt of the arguments so far is "members of the BC are inherently notable", so we could say it falls under C6. Regarding "leading scientist", I'm not so sure... ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I felt the Bioethics Council met Criterion 6 of WP:PROF. It's an honor to be appointed by the president to a council (whose members are described as "leading scientists (etc.)") where one will advise the president; it isn't as though she was hired into it as a job. JJL (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, one of the reasons her nomination is controversial is precisely because it is a very major position, and her credentials are somewhat on the low side for it--thus giving some discussions of the possible basis for the nomination. I assume this will be discussed further in the article; it applies to several other recent nominees to the BC as well.DGG (talk) 04:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Controversial appointments tend to create controversy, and a quick check on Google news archive confirms her appointment was discussed in the media. So I think we're in agreement here -- while the inclusion criterion for most academics is merit, there are cases where inclusion is warranted regardless of their standing in the academic community. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 10:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, one of the reasons her nomination is controversial is precisely because it is a very major position, and her credentials are somewhat on the low side for it--thus giving some discussions of the possible basis for the nomination. I assume this will be discussed further in the article; it applies to several other recent nominees to the BC as well.DGG (talk) 04:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Not to pile on, but this is a keeper. I added a quote from The New Yorker to flesh out notability.Wageless (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In addition to everything mentioned above, her nomination and subsequent activity has generated some controversy. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. RJC Talk Contribs 18:04, 3 February 2008 (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.