Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Hansen Lassetter

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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 18:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Hansen Lassetter[edit]

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

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

Biography of dubious notability. The individual is a university dean who holds a few qualifications. Even the article's creator is unsure if the person is notable ("might meet point 3 (of WP:PROF)", etc). An unreferenced BLP of a (non-notable) living person. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep being the dean is not sufficient for noteability. However, being a fellow of an academic association such as American Academy of Nursing probably is, see https://www.aannet.org/about/fellows "The American Academy of Nursing's approximately 2,400 fellows are nursing leaders in education, management, practice and research." --hroest 18:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"..probably is.."? It either meets the notability requirements, or it does not. If it's the former, please can you link me to the relevant notability guidelines? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment C2 from WP:NACADEMIC is the relavent guideline, but what's not clear to me is how "highly selective" this specific one is. If she was an "Honorary Fellow" or "Living Legend" I'd be more inclined to say keep. There's also C6 to consider as she's president of two institutions, but again I'm not sure if they are "major academic institution"s. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment was this accidentally published in this anemic state? I recall that the creator of the article has stressed for the need for all articles to go through AfC so the encyclopedia doesn't end up with articles like this one. Perhaps the creator would like to draftify until he can put together something better. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as is not notable. I looked in Newspapers.com too; the sole non-obituary entry I could find for her (searched married and maiden+married names) was her name in a list of graduates. Delete unless the academic Wikipedians can find something worthwhile in her academic history, like being cited many times. I can't imagine every fellow in an organization is notable. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per David Eppstein below. While these organizations fail to impress notability, she has a fair number of peer-reviewed publications that have been cited. I wish there were a weak weak keep option. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article on her brother H. Reese Hansen is similarly poorly sourced and of dubious notability. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep In contrast to the above comments consider dean of a nursing program to be relatively notable so weak C6, I also consider that the Fellowship is selective but not enough on its own but contributes to the picture - Weak C3 (its not as selective as AAS or FRS etc). Google scholar revealed some publications which are good for the field - Weak C1. Together, I favor inclusion based off meeting three criteria - although weakly. PainProf (talk) 00:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note I say good for the field, most nurses don't publish, or publish very few papers I found 20 in PubMed, 13 of which I consider her to be a major contributor too, as first or last author, for the field of nursing I consider this to be an uncommonly good record, which explains why she has been appointed dean. PainProf (talk) 00:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:PROF as a Fellow of the American Academy of Nursing which is a "major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor." TJMSmith (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a clear pass as being a fellow of the American Academy of Nursing. There is also the fact that the nominator has failed to post a notice of this on my talk page, which is one of the required steps in posting an AfD.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am really torn about this. If the 2400 is the current number of fellows of the American Academy of Nursing I am doubting that being a fellow is a sign of notability. People seem to be ignoring though her possible strongest claims to notability. It is not in being a dean of one nursing schools, but of heading the International Family Nursing Association and in being head of the Western Institute of Nursing. That is what we really should be looking at. However on further research the first uses International because it focuses on getting nurses to look at the whole world population, and seems to be a mainly US based onganization with little attention yet in scholarly circles. It has only existed since 2004 or so. The Western Institute of Nursing has existed for 63 years. It started our as the Western Council on Higher Education in Nursing under the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. I may have been too quick to assign more meaning and influence to these groups than they deserve, here is a 50th anniversary article on the Western Institute for Nursing ^[1] This position makes her the leader in the matter of nursing for one of the 4 regional accredidation councils in the US. It was heading this organization or heading the International Family Nursing Association that I was invoking in citing criteria c6, not being a dean at a nursing school. That is the argument for c6. To me the biggest question is do profession specfic heads for regional accedidation organizations pass c6, or not, something that no one has even tried to discuss yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ [1]

You have shown that you either don't understand the notability requirements of this subject area, or think it's OK to create an article that is non-notable. Considering your poor recent history with prods and the wave of delete votes at AfD you cast, this is another sign of WP:CIR. And to clarify a point you made, albeit now crossed out, it is not a requirement to post a notice on your talkpage about an AfD. WP:AFD clearly states - "Consider letting the authors know on their talk page..." (my emphasis). I considered doing it. I didn't do it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — A single criterion from the PROF SNG been satisfied is sufficient enough for any individual in question to possess a stand alone article & as it so happens, the subject of our discussion does indeed satisfy at least one criterion from WP:PROF. #3 to be precise. Celestina007 19:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The one paper I could see the h-index # for was... 1, which is even smaller than that of the thesis of yours truly. If someone more familiar with checking these things would investigate, I'm waiting on the edge of my seat. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Try this and then check citations at Dimensions. PainProf (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as per PainProf's comments. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've spent a long time considering this one. She just about meets C2 and C3 of WP:NACADEMIC. This tips her over the edge into keep territory for me. Fiddle Faddle 11:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Subject meets C2 and C3 of WP:NACADEMIC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ch1p the chop (talk • contribs) 14:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep despite the extreme temptation of treating this as its article creator would for any AfD of a non-BYU and non-theology academic and leaving a boilerplate delete comment regardless of actual notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed personal discussion not relevant to AfD. Please take that to individual talk pages

- Your personal attack is not at all justified. Engaging in such personal attacks on other people undermines the functioning of Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - For example I created the article on Theodore H. Okiishi, who was an academic at Iowa State University in engineering. I could come up with other articles I have created that clearly are "non-BYU, non-theology academics".John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please work on your reading comprehension skills. David Eppstein said how you'd vote in an AfD, not what you have in the past created. Geez. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Perhaps I should have left it worded as I originally did, with "non-LDS" instead of "non-theology". Okiishi is LDS. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        This is also a bold faced lie. I have created article on academics who were not members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I recently voted to keep on a Naga college president, a person who in no way was a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, This whole threatening to delete articles to punish the creator is a very bad proposed actions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        OMG, JPL. Find someone who can read to you. No one is talking about what you've created. No one threatened to delete anything. You're digging yourself a hole. Quit while you're only this far below ground. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Happy to withdraw this now. Hopefully Lambert has learned that creating stuff like this isn't the best way to start an article. Maybe work on your sourcing next time. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:58, 11 August 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.

[1] [1]

[1]