Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shlomit Yanisky-Ravid

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. – Joe (talk) 07:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shlomit Yanisky-Ravid[edit]

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

Shlomit Yanisky-Ravid (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)

Can't see how this individual passes WP:PROF, and certainly doesn't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No opinion as yet, but her CV may be useful for those interested in whether her publications qualify her for WP:NAUTHOR. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I found one review of her book Intellectual Property at the Workplace (ISBN 9789654421072):
Her most-cited article (36 hits on Google Scholar) is Yanisky-Ravid, Shlomit (2017). "Generating Rembrandt: Artificial Intelligence, Accountability and Copyright—The Human-Like Workers Are Already Here—A New Model". Michigan State Law Review. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2957722. ISSN 1556-5068. SSRN 2957722.
Law is a very high citation field, so 36 hits is not especially impressive. "Generating Rembrandt" apparently was named a "visionary article in intellectual property law", but I'm not really sure what that is since there doesn't appear to be independent coverage of it. I found nothing special on Westlaw that's not free to access elsewhere. I think WP:NAUTHOR is the most viable criterion and I'm not seeing enough coverage to meet it. Perhaps there are other sources in Hebrew, and I'd be more than willing to reconsider my vote if that's the case. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at and responded to DEgnel's points below. My !vote remains unchanged. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(I corrected the link below to Katherine B. Forrest.) The point about restricting attention to a sub-field does not convince me. You can make anyone seem important by narrowing your field of view. Our standards focus on significance on the field broadly construed, not in a specific research area. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not convinced by the single Supreme Court of Israel citation. Academic papers are often cited by courts—especially by major appellate courts. I am not convinced that the award given by the Michigan State Law review is a major enough award to indicate broad significance in the field of law, and it is certainly not enough for WP:ANYBIO. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully disagree as to scholarly impact in general. Citation count on Google Scholar lists her highest cited paper as 36 cites. Not sufficient to indicate broad importance in a high-citation field. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the additional sources mentioned below are primary. I cannot evaluate the ones in Hebrew as I do not read that language. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Perhaps TOOSOON. She is a professor at Law at Fordham, and has published a number of articles that come up in Google Scholar but none of them seem to have a lot of cites. Apart from that, I can't really see any RS or interviews that substantiate her.Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a new Wikipedia contributor, I feel like I have failed to create a page that describes the importance of her and her work accurately enough. As a result, I believe, one might conclude that she doesn't pass WP:GNG, WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. Here are my arguments for why she does:

  1. WP:PROF - Both the discussion and the article are not focusing the field of research that makes her unique. Law (IP, Privacy, Labour) facing the futures (and present) challenges of advanced technology (AI, cyberspace, blockchain). Judge Katherine B. Forrest Judge named her "he foremost thinker of AI and copyright", for her research in the field.Fordham Prof. Page Yale Prof. Page.
    1. Following that, I believe that her citation count should be looked at from a law and advanced tech POV, and compared to such papers, as opposed to measure citation count against classic Law papers. A quick search on google scholar can help reassess.
    2. Other relevant metrics should be her paper journal rankings and awards (e.g. Generating Rembrandt, Michigan State Law Award) and the fact that her paper was cited by the Israeli Supreme Court Verdict Article
  2. WP:AUTHOR - Sections 1 "important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" and especially 2 "a significant new concept, theory, or technique.", I think are made clear by the previous paragraph and the provided sources.
  3. WP:GNG and WP:BIO - More sources can help (and will be provided below). However, I think that even currently the sources are reliable, intellectually independent, and indeed are significant coverage.

I hereby call for help to improve this page. I have done my reading and will definitely work on it. In order to be improved, this page must to be kept. Lastly, some additional sources. For this article to be improved, it needs some more sources.

  1. Yale Prof. Page - isn't referenced in the article.
  2. Ono Academic College Prof. Page - As her current academic institute, not even mentioned.
  3. Recent article about privacy and Covid-19 (From Ynet)
  4. Podcast about AI and IP (english)
  5. Article about privacy in workplace (From Calcalist)

DEgnel (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AleatoryPonderings, please untangle your replies from DEgnel's comment. It is hard to follow (see WP:TPO).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't see any evidence of notability. It would also be interesting to know if the creator has a WP:COI with the subject. Number 57 10:40, 28 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shlomit_Yanisky-Ravid&oldid=976664754"