Talk:Adrienne Erickcek

Inspirational teacher
I removed the mention of her nominating her physics teacher for Inspirational Teacher of the Year (which was later reverted) because I do not see this as necessarily relevant to her entry; if the teacher had been bluelinked I would feel differently but as it is it's just trivia. Bringing it here for further discussion. Primefac (talk) 22:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I think all people called out by name as inspirational mentors of notable people should be mentioned on the articles about those people, regardless of whether those mentors are themselves notable (and especially regardless of whether we actually already have articles about those mentors). The state that you left the article after your partial self-revert is bad. The fact that she nominated someone for an award is unimportant and not worth mentioning by itself. The fact that she named a specific person, Michael Sinclair, as an inspirational mentor is worth mentioning and was the point of that sentence. You have left the sentence without its point.
 * Incidentally, the fact that I did not redlink Sinclair's name does not imply that he must be non-notable. As well as winning the national inspirational teacher award discussed in (my version of) this article, and gaining non-trivial press coverage for it, he also has non-trivial press coverage for later being named as one of the Major League Baseball and People magazine All-Star Teachers . I think there's a plausible case for notability there. I also think this is irrelevant to whether he should be named in Erickcek's article. (I also didn't redlink her husband's name, but he appears to pass WP:PROF. I mentioned him not because of his potential notability but because, as a professional in the same field, her marriage with him is more relevant to Erickcek's notability than would be marriage to someone not in the field.) —David Eppstein (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The question of whether Sinclair is notable is probably a debate to be had elsewhere (I myself have done research into this in the past and do not personally think he meets GNG; most of the coverage he has received is local, despite his achievements).
 * My concern with this article is that we are mentioning a trivial amount of information about a cosmologist to happened to nominate her (currently not-notable) teacher for a (currently not-notable) award. In other words, what information does this provide, other than the fact that she found the time to write up a submission entry for an award? Primefac (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We often mention and name spouses, so this is not an issue or concern to me. Primefac (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You're still missing the point. "happened to nominate her (currently not-notable) teacher for a (currently not-notable) award" is not the important part of this information. The important part is that many years later she remembered one particular teacher as being an inspiration to her own career. He was influential, to her specifically. Therefore he is worth mentioning here.
 * We often do not mention spouses, either. I tend to avoid mentioning them unless there is more to say. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:06, 25 December 2023 (UTC)