Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joan H. Lee
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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Joan H. Lee[edit]
- Joan H. Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence this person is independently notable of her thesis, and notability is not inherited. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 22:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. She is a scholar who becomes notable by virtue of her scholarly work. Simple--not a matter of inheriting anything. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Actually, that's exactly what inheriting notability means, to claim your work/product's notability for yourself, or vice versa. I grant that there's a difference between being notable because you wrote something, and not being notable despite having written something notable. The difference is that in the former case, both author and product should have RS about them, and in the latter, only the written work gets significant coverage. And I have no evidence that we're dealing with an example of the former. She doesn't turn up in any sort of RS I can find except as secondary to her work. You'd think someone would write a news article about her, who happens to be the author of this thesis, rather than this thesis, which happens to be authored by her. Furthermore, I haven't found any evidence that she's notable for any scholarly work except that one thesis, which means she may also run afoul of WP:ONEEVENT. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 01:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Consider the significance of the event and her role in the event. Early to say, but seems pretty significant. JordTu (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's extremely unusual for an academic to become notable so early (and, in fact, I don't think she meets WP:PROF, but there's a clear pass of WP:GNG/WP:ANYBIO. I have never before seen an MA thesis generating so much interest and coverage. The only minus point I see is that perhaps at this early point in her career, WP:BLP1E should be taken to apply here. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed: BLP1E is a valid consideration here, but in my opinion it's outweighed by the crazy amount of coverage--I'm applying item 7 of WP:PROF here. Mind you, I feel weird about looking at PROF for someone who hasn't even graduated... Guillaume, did you ever make the papers like that? De Typhoon doesn't even know I exist. Drmies (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS, PROF, and BLP1EVENT. Although the cited sources don't show dates, every one I looked at was published in February 2012, which is not surprising since that's when Lee's thesis went up on Proquest. I would not be shocked to learn that a press release went out at about the same time. This looks like the kind of 'sexy' science paper (it deals with young people, the internet & language change, and offers a counter-intuitive conclusion that journalists can riff off of) that periodically dominate the science news pages for a couple of months and then fade away. Cnilep (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I tend to agree that she meets GNG/PROF7. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak Keep notable under GNG. I don't think WP:PROF really applies, especially in view of her position and other publications. The info box is stretching things by calling her an information scientist and linguist, since she is still a student, as shown by her listing at the university which I added as an external link. (And her other work consists of 1 meeting paper listing--not even an abstract, & one article published in her university's own publication) That she wrote a MA thesis on something which happens to get widespread attention does not mean notability as an academic in the usual sense, though widespread attention does meet the GNG. It would really help to write the refs in such a way as to display where they come from--whether newspapers, blogs , or scholarly articles (it's done by adding a work= parameter to the citeweb template) . It's in the wikitext, but it needs to be visible, because one's understand of her is affected by it--for example, in fact, ref 1 is her thesis, refs 2—4 are local newspapers, 5-6 national newspapers, 7—9 responsible online news services, and every one of the rest newspapers or science/technology news services throughout the world that reprinted the story. But I think Jorgath has a point: it's like someone who has published a single literary work, where the article could equally well be about the work, and perhaps BLP1E does apply. On balance, we might as well include it DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 21 March 2012 (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.