Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jemma Green

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. Arguments that the article failed to meet the criteria for WP:PROF or WP:POLITICIAN were stronger. Determination of consensus also took into account both the ambiguity of the nominator's statements and the lack of valid argument in two of the keep comments. — CactusWriter (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jemma Green[edit]

Jemma Green (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)

no longer wanted Medic37 (talk) 04:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Medic37, do you have a valid reason for deleting the article? If so, please state the reason why the article does not meet one of the guidelines. Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Medic37 What do you mean "no longer wanted"? By who? Do you have a connection to the subject? Cookshat (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although nomination is inadequate, notability cannot be found. Subject has published some articles that have attracted inadequate interest. Just publishing stuff is not enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Indeed, but there are plenty of independent sources referenced here, such as the work on Blockchain, or winning the City of Perth election, and certainly not the Cambridge and Curtin University sources, which suggests she meets WP:PROF. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which category of WP:Prof do you claim is met? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak keep as an WP:Academic. She has made a name for herself since her fellowship at Curtin University researching and writing about energy, infrastructure, climate change, and sustainability - and her work has been cited in scholarly articles and in some books. There are 162 (click on page 17) articles from a search on news... and these seem to be mostly about this Jemma Green. She also garners speaking engagements on these topics. I would feel stronger if there were more publications that reference her work and greater industry / media recognition in terms of awards, etc.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no possibility of the subject passing any category of WP:Prof. Her cites on GS are miniscule and what else is there? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I stated my vote and my reasoning and don't have anything new to say.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perth is a small town with 11,385 on the electoral roll [1], however as a Public Servant she has some relevance Cookshat (talk) 05:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Perth is a major city with a population of just over 2 million people and some 1.4 million registeredd voters.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Correct Facts - The City of Perth, which Green has been elected to the Council, has only 11,385 voters on the electoral roll, as per the exact citation above at the electoral commission website. Velella is confusing the designation of the area called Perth with the actual City of Perth. The area called Perth has dozens of small Councils within its boundaries, of which the City of Perth, is one. Cookshat (talk) 07:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Australian Academy of Science is seeking to get more representation of female scientists on Wikipedia talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC) — Jeffreymarkrogers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing promotional bios of minor politicions. Lacks coverage about her in independent reliable sources. No sign of passing WP:PROF. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She passes neither WP:PROF (too low citation count, no major awards, etc) nor WP:POLITICIAN (elected office is too minor). And the sources we have for her, while perhaps adequate for the factual detail they source, do not provide the high profile, editorial independence, and depth of coverage of the subject that I would expect for WP:GNG. I am sympathetic to the case that we should have better coverage of female scientists on Wikipedia, but the way to do that is to write articles about the many significant female scientists who are still missing from Wikipedia, not to try to prop up the insignificant ones. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For a really notable female scientist take a look at Michelle Simmons. Wikipedia needs to have more BLPs on people of this calibre assuming, of course, that they give their permission to be written about. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
That's nothing!! :-P Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment might be construed to be derogatory to the person I mentioned. You might like to redact it per WP:BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment I have reason to believe the nominator's rationale is WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and I am trying to follow this up off-wiki. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, SaintAviator lets talk 21:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Certainly not notable as a politician, not sufficient as an academic. There are bits and pieces from several areas, but the subject doesn't appear notable enough in any one sphere. --Michig (talk) 08:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.elections.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/2015%20Local%20Government%20Ordinary%20Elections%20Report.pdf
  • Strong delete She comes no where close to passing any notability criteria for academics. Being elected a member of the Perth Council is not a claim to notability. She has no actual claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per David and John's comments above. Ms Green does not appear to have yet had a significant academic career, and the other claims to notability are not sufficient to meet WP:BIO. Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2017 (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/Jemma_Green&oldid=1069220531"