Talk:Clarice Phelps/Archive 2

When can we publish this page?
Hello fellow editors, what do we have to add to this article to get it moved into the main space? I am very grateful to everyone who has helped turn this article around. Jesswade88 (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Unsure, she still seems to be notable for being part of a team, not really in her own right.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * November - considering we just had another DRV. Futhermore - present sources do not quite establish GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 14:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't you mean "not before November"? She really needs to actually do something and have it written up. RSN knocked back the "first black woman" claim and there's still a lot of needless padding in this thing, eg: the YWCA award simply should not be in the lead and probably not even in the article. - Sitush (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That would be more accurate, yes.Icewhiz (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It would be really fantastic to see this page for this notable and important woman of colour to be published Srsval (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * At least a plurality of WP editors (a majority of those showing up in these type of discussions, I guess anyway, believe the subject doesn't pass wp:GNG (arguing a quasi gov'tal lab can't be relied upon in its giving partial credit re a breakthru to a nuclear chemistry technician, national news relaying the same ditto, so on).--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 00:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * For the opposite argument, should anybody be interested, consider: Some folks on English-language Wikipedia, such as myself, essentially feel an encyclopedia not limited-to-paper ought be ***open to all ideas*** (hat-tip link) receiving sufficient notice in secondary sources, period. We tend to be “creatives” who feel that too limiting a spirit given intellectual inputs impedes their value as generators of what ultimately might become “great” observations / creations. The other camp (which ought be described by one of its members) are more practical. They focus, I imagine, more on the short term, feeling that I dunno too much miasma cripples an encyclopedia’s function of its delivering existing knowledge in the here and now while privileging the tried-and-true over whatever's fringe or mundane. Of course, the two together really form a dialectic and balance one another, I suppose. In any case, a number of contributors to Wikipedia perceive certain natures of media coverage as not “serious” enough, these Wikipedia contributors’ being /prescriptive/ about what the public /should/ go to the online encyclopedia to learn about, rather than their being /descriptive/ of what can be shown that the public /does/ go to the online encyclopedia to learn about. Thus despite Ms. Phelps’s “passing” Wikipedia's general notability guideline via various media covering her Wikipedia biography's deletion, etc., she was /not/ granted an English-language Wikipedia biography. Indeed, after notice of the bio's Wikipedia deletion took place, a Wikipedia administrator — a so-called “Wikipedian-in-residence” at an institution in the city of New York — gave preliminary OK to another short draft specifying Phelps had helped prepare material for transformation to the soon-to-be-discovered element, after which this Wikipedia administrator added its mention of an award Phelps earned for educational activities locally. This second effort at a biography, however, was quickly deleted as a “re-post,” with the argument that majority opinion from earlier editing discussions concerning the matter ought remain considered the Wikipedia community's ongoing consensus.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Tip, since you keep doing this: read WP:TLDR. - Sitush (talk) 03:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, its about treating all subjects the same. When (and if) she becomes independently notable in her own right (say in the saw Hawkins or Arnold are) then we can have an article on her. But when a person becomes more notable for not having a Wikipedia article then for the work they do I start to worry.Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Kit Chapman's new book Superheavy: Making and Breaking the Periodic Table is being published in a few weeks time, and it reportedly has an entire chapter discussing Tennessine and mention's Phelps' involvement. If that provides a new source that meets GNG then I'd think that would be a good opportunity to publish. https://twitter.com/ChemistryKit/status/1124298136850259968
 * Maybe, but three is still the issue of she must be independently notable, not notable as part of a team.Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * True—but where's the article for the team? Tennessine? If so, material should be added there—and if part of a notable team there should be a redirect at both Clarice E. Phelps and Clarice Phelps. Nfitz (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We would end up with hundreds of redirects, then the political fanatics would start creating redirects from every town councillor to the town's article etc. We've got a big enough maintenance problem with BLPs without adding to it. - Sitush (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe, I have to admit to never being all that sure about redirects, Its not as if this is all she has done (as I said there is an argument for an article about the wikicontrovery, which received moire coverage she she alone has). So I am not sure what we should in fact redirect to.Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If she is a significant part of a team that is notable I don't know why we wouldn't have a redirect. If she were notable for being part of this Wikipedia controversy then that's a different issue really - and there would be a better case if the best sources on the subject weren't written by the person who had originally created the article. Really the sources need to be improved and expanded on, to try again, whether one agrees with the AFD and DRV. There's nothing currently anywhere else that one could redirect to - so that's entirely academic at this point. It's hard to argue that she's notable for her work with Tennessine when there's nothing on that page that mentions her, or the team. Nfitz (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have just explained why we wouldn't have one. Even just this one team was pretty big, so we would open the floodgates to have redirects for everyone who worked on it, and that in turn opens the floodgates to even more in other areas. Just Jesswade's articles alone contain a lot of errors, so we really don't want to have to be monitoring large numbers of redirects for potential article creations or recreations. That has already proved to be a problem in some other instances, including one Indian actor whose name I forget. - Sitush (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is if she was significant member of the team...she would be significant (and hence notable). She is at least (as far as I can tell) as notable (or not notable) for her work with the United States Navy Nuclear Power Program, with the National Aeronautic and Space Administration, the discovery of... well why go on. She seems to have been part of many teams, on many programs. Do we only redirect to one out of many?Slatersteven (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you, Sitush. WP:Redirects are cheap and seldom do any harm. However the point is moot, as there's literally nothing to redirect this particular article to at this time. Open the floodgates! Nfitz (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of things it could be redirected to right now, as Slatersteven notes. I think you're completely missing my point - it is nothing to do with WP:Redirects are cheap. Go down that road, by all means, and I could add 25,000 redirects in a month, each one being a UK councillor. Are you going to keep an eye on them all? Someone has to. - Sitush (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you that there's anything that it could be redirected to now. I don't even see her name mentioned in another article - let alone anything that would support a redirect. Other article's might be improved later that would allow for a redirect, but I don't see anything now. (Or perhaps my search is failing somehow). Nfitz (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought we were talking about future hypotheticals.Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought you and I were indeed talking about the future. But Sitush said "plenty of things it could be redirected to right now" - and I don't believe they are correct about that. Nfitz (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

This draft doesn't belong in the main space at this time. Her notability has been decided in no less than two AfD discussions, two deletion review discussions, and one speedy deletion, all of them taking place in 2019 and resulting in three deletions of the article and the WP:SALTing of the article to prevent recreations, and any attempt to recreate the article again in the near future in defiant violation of those discussions would surely be viewed as disruptive. As many editors have commented on, her only possible claim to notability at this point would have to be derived from the deletion of her Wikipedia article as a result of her lacking notability based on professional merits, so that would have to be the main focus of any potential article. I, and other editors, sincerely believe that we would be doing her a huge disservice by writing an article about her that would inevitably have to focus on that. This draft is unsuitable as it continues to highlight her work that was already found in four different discussions to be of a non-notable nature, while only mentioning the Wikipedia article controversy, her only claim to possible (if dubious) notability, with a single sentence at the end of the article. --Tataral (talk) 11:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I see that a new article has been added which surely goes a long way to establishing notability. A reference from Chapman's new book, which is now out, would go a long way. Has anyone got access to it to assess if it could be referenced to improve the article? Nfitz (talk) 05:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That article is, yet again, mostly about her WP article being deleted. --Randykitty (talk) 07:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And is even more trivial then most, it being about his book, and no even this controversy. Yes again (as I say below) it is not us who are ignoring her work, its people like Chappamn, and the author of that article, who cannot be arsed to actually write about her.Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:THREE. List the three here.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have the book/ebook by Chapman, lying right beside me and AFAIS, Clarice Phelps has been mentioned over a single occasion. A footnote, has been appended (over Chapter 12), afterwhich mentions:-Interestingly, Chapter 20 talks about the broader story of purification over Oakridge in a sub-part and mentions several names like Julie Ezold, Joe Hamilton et al but not Phelps.Chapman's marginalization of Phelps in the book, to a mere footnote, despite ranting over Twitter and other venues, speaks volumes about the overall issue. Also, no mention of her being the first African American woman, either and Chapman even safely evades giving a definite answer to the issue of whether other African Americans have been ever involved in these areas! Effectively, she has been turned into a PR-vehicle. Regards, &#x222F; WBG converse 08:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Why its not our fault she is not notable.Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * T also think this may be a useful lesson about notability (and maybe needs mention in policy) if an author writes to you about something, never assume he has actually written anything. I am actually very annoyed at the way this has been manipulated, and in such a dishonest way.Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It is all rather bizarre. I always figured that she was borderline on being notable, with the self-published aspect of the ORNL material being troubling. I tend to think that the coverage to April barely pushes it over the mark. I'm surprised there's really that much controversy here, though I can see the logic of arguments from both sides. I'm struggling between that she's notable, but under-reported due to the systemic racial and sexual bias that we know exists in society, or that they simply aren't notable. But then I look at what else exists. A few days ago Joseph F. Ambrose appeared on the front page of Wikipedia ... and I look at that article, and I ask what in there is there to establish notability, that isn't WP:ONEEVENT (assuming that being caught in a nationally-published photo even qualifies as that). But not only has no one ever questioned that - but the article makes it to the front page of Wikipedia (see May 24 of Picture of the day/May 2019). Nfitz (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I will not comment on Mr Ambrose, this is not the place to discus his notability (or lack of it). But I will say that notability is governed by coverage, not merit. Moreover (as I say above) even the man who (literally) wrote the book on the subject clearly did not really see her as deserving more then a footnote (and that cannot be called being notable). Yes it is bizarre, that so much publicity was generated based upon (what can only be described) as the over selling (being generous) of the contents of a book. All she was notable for was what the book does not even claim (except as an afterthought, and even that is not the main claim), despite the author implying it did, and the wiki controversy.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * , Umm. His photo appeared under the Picture of The Day section which (AFAIS), is not concerned about relevant article quality. &#x222F; WBG converse 15:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Winged Blades of GodricTrue, though how can thousands, if not millions of people see that, and not one person questions the notability (and I say this as an WP:Inclusionist!)? Nfitz (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is irrelevant, this article is not about him.Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not irrelevant. If I can understand how that article is notable, perhaps I, and others, can understand why this article isn't. We can move the discussion elsewhere. Nfitz (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As they are not about the same kind of person the reasons may be different (that is why we have different kinds of notability requirements). This should be discus over at the notability board, not here. But here maybe one clue, why have you not nominated the other article for deletion?Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Because Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I'm surprised you'd suggest trying to learn why an article might be notable by AFDing it, rather than asking around others who seem to understand why articles aren't notable. Sorry, I thought it was a simple question ... the longer this goes on, the more I start to wonder if the primary issue here is indeed WP:BIAS. Nfitz (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What has that got to do with it? I did not suggest you try, I said the reason why you would not might give you a clue why others have not. I pointed out that he is not a scientist, and so may well meet different notability criteria then Miss Phelps does not. As far as I can tell no one who has said Ms Phelps fails notability have said anything about Mr Ambrose's notability, and (again) THIS IS NOT THE PLACE TO TALK ABOUT IT, as has been pointed out below, other stuff exists is not a valid reason for inclusion. If you think he is not notable take it to his talk page, if you think he is notable stop asking us to (in effect) prove he is (Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point). Talk pages are for discussing the article they are about, not anything else, I also ask you to AGF, as such this is a distraction that takes us no further forward. As has been said (multiple time), Ms Phelps has to have been noted by RS for her achievements, not for something someone else did she was part of (or in the case of the wiki controversy something she did not participate in). The fact the (literally) book on the subject gives her one line should be clue enough why she is not notable.Slatersteven (talk) 08:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What it has to do with it, is that it does raise the question that WP:BIAS might be an issue here. Also they both seem to be notable for the same reason, a peripheral mention in the media. One as a bystander in a photo in a news article, the other as an example of bias in a news article; that there may not have (originally) have been bias in the original decision becomes moot. Nfitz (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , you were un-Tbanned days ago and you are again migrating to the same territory, despite being in a different namespace.
 * When we send a featured photo to main-page, we don't give a damn about the corresponding article. This is not SO difficult to understand, right?
 * If you feel that the subject is non-notable, just launch an AfD, Twinkle is your friend. Even I might (after I manage to evaluate the scenario) but shall I see you talking any further about Ambrose, over here, expect to find yourself at AN. &#x222F; WBG converse 15:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No it does not, please read wp:agf, If there is any evidence of bias you need to show which editors have chosen to keep that article, whilst deleting this one. So have any editors been involved with both these articles? If not there is no bias, just a different set of standards in operation on a different subject used by different people.Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I assumed they were talking about systematic bias, which is very likely the case, not what is evidently assumed to be bad faith in the responses and threats. cygnis insignis 15:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And it still does not demonstrate it, as I said he is not a scientist and so may well meet some criteria that does not apply to Ms Phelps (and which we may not be aware of). Which is why its irrelevant here, as none of us have edited that article. Trying to -play the "bias" card is a distraction that demonstrates nothing about Ms Phelpes (or a war veterans) notability. I am now asking (formally) for this off topic distraction to be hatted.Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Slatersteven the WP:BIAS article is a redirect to WP:Systemic bias. I'm not understanding why you are referencing WP:AGF and needing to show which editors because I mentioned systemic bias; surely that's now how systemic bias works. 00:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Because that is how users enforce systematic bias. cygnis insignis 08:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Slatersteven the WP:BIAS article is a redirect to WP:Systemic bias. I'm not understanding why you are referencing WP:AGF and needing to show which editors because I mentioned systemic bias; surely that's now how systemic bias works. 00:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Because that is how users enforce systematic bias. cygnis insignis 08:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS --Randykitty (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

poignancy
I restored an edit because I thought it pertinent, a reply to my final comment in the muted discussion above, but this was reverted by the contributor as the discussion was closed (hatted) (as they had earlier requested). As a starting point to the next discussion, this was the response: "Because you have to show that bias is in fact in operation, a mere accusation based on one dodgy article is not enough. There may well be systematic bias on Wikipedia, that does not mean it is in operation here, after all not all cops shoot black men. That is why I link to AGF, I do not (and should not have to prove I am not biased in order to be listened to, any more then you should have to. If there is an problem with an uneven application of notability this is not the place to discuss it (as I said) and using it to justify inclusion is a case of two wrongs do not make a right. The existence of band articles is not a justification for more bad articles, but for deleting the existing ones. There is nothing more to be said, we are making the same points over and over again. This is my last post about this. I do not think notability has been established, end of story.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)"

I think this begs a reply, or at least provides context to POV at the end of the discussion. cygnis insignis 17:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * It was posted after the close (due to an edit conflict) and thus was removed for what reason. Nor is there any need or reason to re-open a debate that was closed less then 12 hours ago for being off topic.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Engaging in debate is not how I choose to contribute here, context and multiple POVs is what I edit. cygnis insignis 17:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Can we close this, it is not about improving the article, in fact I am not sure what its point is.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Revert rationale
To anyone interested in discussion, I just restored an edit that seems valid, but without understanding the rationale for removal, and note it cited the BBC? What am I not understanding. cygnis insignis 19:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Reverted for the second time because, "because it is a clearly false statement - if you cannot see that, you should not be editing". I admit I assumed that the edit was good because it was an established user, restoring a false statement is pretty bad. I might self-report, after having a word with the user (maybe checking whether reverter is correct first, sound like they know what they re talking about). cygnis insignis 19:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I do and I was already typing a rationale. See next section and please self-revert . You should have known it was wrong simply from reading the existing draft text, which makes it clear that she was part of a large team. Unfortunately, there is now so much citogenesis etc that it is likely to be years before Phelps' notability on the basis of this claim can be reliably established. Wade has shot herself in the foot. - Sitush (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Just read the article, that is exactly what it said. I don't think you description of the contribution is accurate. I will see if I can find about who this Wade is. Please reduce the number of unnecessary adjectives, hard to see what your point is or the urgent concern about reverting two editors who currently disagree, the contributor and myself.cygnis insignis 19:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wade is the WP article creator first time round. I am not sure what article you have read to which you refer - the draft, the BBC one, the Chemistry World one? It doesn't really matter: if you know the history of this from the first creation, some of which I outline below, you'll know that neither Jesswade88 or Kit Chapman can be considered reliable on the matter. - Sitush (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * He has an 88 in the username, am I going to find some white nationalists are behind this, exposing why I should not be editing here?? cygnis insignis 20:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Jess Wade is a woman, and I think the 88 is more likely a reference to her year of birth. --RL0919 (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you cousin, I'm reminded to never make sarcastic comments here, it was a reaction to being told I should not be here at all (because I really enjoy most of it). Cheers. cygnis insignis 22:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem lies with this half-quote: The Oak Ridge team (including Clarice Phelps, the first black American woman to discover an element) ... <- She didn't discover the element. Today the leading team for element discovery is in Dubna, Russia, led by physicist Yuri Oganessian <- His team did with the assistance of the ORNL team. The ORNL team purified Berkelium which was a necessary element for Oganessian's team to discover (or more accurately create, since it was already know to exist) the element. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I restored without the quote. There was no reason to revert the edit, as the rest of the edit was gnomish cite template improvements and bundling. BBC Science Focus is an RS, and it directly supports the cited statement attributed to KC. There's no reason not to have that source there as part of the bundle. – Levivich 20:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * [ec, does no-one pause for thought} Ah, that I understand, she was part of a team that made it possible for the second to complete the discovery, because it is not something you can pull together in the garden shed. All this First To stuff never bears scrutiny, very likely it was women who discovered the first elements and they were certainly 'black'. cygnis insignis 20:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is that with the publication of his book those sources now look rather ill informed and dated (and RS can go out of date an new information emerges).Slatersteven (talk) 08:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

More pointless source additions
There is no point adding non-independent sources to this draft. Justifying them as (paraphrase) "they do no harm" misses the fact that they do no good either. The issues with this article in its various forms have related in large part to whether or not the subject is notable and such sources have been rejected time and again. Continually trying to add them is not going to improve the chances of the thing being reinstated as a full article when consensus has so recently and so frequently been that they are unsuitable. Some people just do not seem to want to learn from past mistakes or abide by consensus. - Sitush (talk) 03:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Unreliable sources
I've removed this and really should remove the Chemistry World claim also. Chapman and Wade are clearly unreliable sources for the claim.

Going back in time, at the DRV for an earlier version of this article, a tweet by Chapman was cited where they claimed Phelps was the first black woman to be involved and that this was stated in his forthcoming book. This supported a previously uncited (and seemingly uncitable) claim made by Wade but raised the question of how Wade knew what was in a book that had not even hit the shelves. When the book was published, it turned out that it did not say what Chapman or Wade claimed. Thereafter, this draft saw the insertion of the BBC source by Chapman that I have just removed: that source says she was the first black woman to discover an element, which is something we already know to be untrue because the element was discovered by a large team in which Phelps was not even a major player in publication terms. We also know that Chapman has been ranting a bit about the issue, per the earlier tweets, and that Wade has also been ranting a bit and essentially forum shopping by trying to get mentions of her opinion in various news publications etc. Wade has next to no understanding of how we are supposed to operate on Wikipedia, despite her 600+ article creations, and I am afraid that the Chemistry World interview merely makes a bad situation worse, yet again.

Neither Chapman nor Wade, nor anyone connected with the two, should be considered reliable for the claim in future. They're on a mission and no longer independent. - Sitush (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

And now it has been restored with the quote. We do not need another source for her involvement in the project at some level (WP:OVERCITE) and should not be using one that is patently incorrect. - Sitush (talk) 20:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The you disagree with Chapman's conclusion does not make him an unreliable source. BBC Science Focus and Chemistry World are reliable sources, as is Chemical & Engineering News. I think we should follow the sources, not the opinions of editors. "Patently incorrect" is your opinion, not supported by any reliable source. In any event, the sentence in our article is one attributed to Chapman, and the sources cited are each an example of Chapman making the claim, published by a different publisher (himself, C&EN, and Science Focus). I don't see what the problem is. – Levivich 20:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not how it works. We've already shown that Chapman has contradicted himself, that Wade is an activist with a sometimes sketchy understanding of sourcing, and the sources are the writers thereof, not the publishers. Those sources, like the earlier news sources written by Wade, are de facto not reliable for the claim. It is indeed patently incorrect that she discovered an element - it is not my opinion. - Sitush (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for discussing me/ my motives here, again. Kit Chapman researched and wrote a book - he was simply documenting history. I’m hardly an ‘activist’ for wanting to improve women’s representation on wikipedia, and am pretty sure I understand sources. Jesswade88 (talk) 07:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You have a BEM for your activism and, no, there is nothing wrong with activism per se. Chapman's book does not say what he or you claimed and, as you well know, you have been criticised (correctly) for poor and outright wrong sourcing. The Chemistry World interiew also demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding how Wikipedia is intended to work. I've said nothing that is wrong here and you've hardly been backward about criticising other people and their motives. However, the point of my criticism is directly related to the content under discussion: we've already noted over the past few months that there is a citogenesis issue. - Sitush (talk) 07:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * BEM? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * BEM = British Empire Medal - the lowest/most common civilian award of the UK. - Sitush (talk) 09:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Language is a fascinating construct. For example 'lowest ... civilian award' may be technically correct but by placing emphasis on its position in a hierarchy the description serves to diminish its value without explaining what its for. The Wikipedia article gives a reasonable summary fortunately. Richard Nevell (talk) 09:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, which is why I linked to the article and explained what I thought the award was given for. "Lowest". "highest" etc are terms used in Indian articles - Bharat Ratna etc - so something probably rubs off on me from that; I also said "most common". Several of my relatives have been awarded the BEM, and a couple got the rather more obscure and probably "lower" but one-off Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee Medal and later variants. I have several BEM recipients among my customers (chairpeople of resident's associations etc), four MBEs that I know of, 3 OBEs and a life peer - probably a typical mix. Sitush (talk) 10:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I would not have guessed that. I would have understood OBE, I've seen enough British TV for that (Kindly Call Me God). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This draft also discussed at User talk:Jimbo Wales. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree about Chapman, he only included a one line footnote about phelps which does not make the most important claim. Yet went on to make claims (or at least imply things) that are not true. In fact this whole issue revolves around his claims, that his own book did not support. I do not think it was advocacy so much as generating a storm for the purposes of publicizing his book.


 * Wade88 I am not sure about, as I know nothing of her work here.Slatersteven (talk) 08:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * So are we keeping this thing in here or not? I am getting fed up of people from the Women In Red project indiscriminately enabling poor contributions by Jesswade88: how is she supposed to learn what our standards are if people keep driving a coach and horses through them? - Sitush (talk) 03:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to discuss an editor, or a WikiProject. – Levivich 05:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Feel free to report me. - Sitush (talk) 06:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not a cooperative attitude, no one wins with this kinds of attitude.Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Oak Ridge Today
Maybe I am missing something, but as far as I can tell Oak Ridge Today is not affiliated/associated with Oak Ridge National Laboratory. It's just a local paper for Oak Ridge, Tennessee and East Tennessee. But if that's not enough, IUPAC has this on their website: [Clarice Phelps] is the first African-American woman to be involved with the discovery of a new element, tennessine (Element 117). I'd rather have these two sources in the article next to such a statement then Kit Chapman's tweet. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the mess of citogenesis caused by this article when it was live, I am wary of trusting a local news source. IUPAC is probably better but, honestly, we've had this discussion before at the AfDs and deletion reviews - it is now almost impossible to determine whether the chicken or egg came first and "involved with" is an incredibly minor claim to notability. Extrapolating from a statistically small random sample of four articles which I am on record as having looked at, there could well be hundreds of errors in Jess's articles but I will be castigated if I attempt to correct them, and some are so old now that it is pretty inevitable that citogenesis has taken over. The entire situation seems to be a case of doing well-intentioned things in haste and repenting at leisure. - Sitush (talk) 04:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the source could be used for an attributed statement; i.e., Chapman and ORNL say she is the first AA woman..., etc. – Levivich 05:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes but it isn't going to make her any more notable because of the underlying issues. I'm afraid this is a complete disaster and we (Wikipedia) have done Clarice Phelps a deep dis-service. - Sitush (talk) 06:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Not every sentence in an article is about proving notability. – Levivich 06:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, too, but this thing is not going to get over the bar unless notability is shown and I think Jess is failing to appreciate that, just as she has failed to appreciate WP:OVERLINK, WP:OVERCITE, WP:RS, WP:OR and lord knows how many other policies and guidelines. I may be wrong but it seems to me that she keeps returning to this with stuff about the "first" claim because she believes it does get it over the bar. It is a waste of her time and that of everyone else and will just lead to another major row if it is not kept in check. If I've misunderstood her intentions then, fair enough, I apologise but I really doubt that I have. - Sitush (talk) 06:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Quality over quantity, both in sources and articles. Its getting tendentious now.Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * What is the problem with using a source (and hypothetically a source from Phelps' own lab)?  Why should it be removed under WP:RS, as is being repeatedly done?
 * Such a source would be WP:PRIMARY. As such (and for that reason alone) it would fail WP:RS. This is no claim that it is unreliable or inaccurate in its content, merely that we exclude it from the secondary sources we would require to meet WP:N or WP:V.
 * And none of that is any reason to remove it. We are permitted to use non-RS sources in articles, and they often have a valuable supplementary role. This is not to excuse sources that are "utterly useless", but to recognise that there is a wide continuum between RS and the unusuable, and that there are many sources, such as this, which add to the article and belong as part of it, even without being usable for the strict RS-requiring uses.
 * Also see WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard Andy Dingley (talk) 10:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem (as I see Sitush's stance) is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and given the fact that the (literally) book on subject does not contain such a claim (even after the author implied it did), a lot of users (and I am one) are dubious about the claims province. Thus we see it as an extraordinary claim requiring an extraordinary source to support it. As Sitush implied this rush to create this article (and now the rush to overcite it) without first confirming all the details with RS has done Ms Phelps chance of an article no end of harm. Users need to let the dust settle and wait for extraordinary sources to repeat claims.Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how the claim is "extraordinary". Given the history of who has been able to participate in science, it seems entirely mundane to me. Frankly, all I see is special pleading to exclude anything Chapman has said or written on the topic. He said that his book mentioned her by name. It does. He said that it has a chapter on tennessine. It does. The book's mention of Phelps is in a footnote. So what? The book doesn't use the exact phrase "the first African-American woman involved in discovering an element". True. That's why it's good to have a specific statement by the author himself clarifying that point (though one would presume that if he knew of an earlier one, the book would have mentioned her as well). The IUPAC and Oak Ridge Today sources do make that point and satisfy every appearance of reliability, and the idea that they are somehow getting their information from a deleted Wikipedia article stretches plausibility beyond breaking. Nor do I see how two sources would amount to over-citation. (Murray Gell-Mann has that many footnotes just to establish that he graduated high school and went to Yale. Alan Turing has three footnotes in its first sentence; Richard Feynman has four. So does Yuri Oganessian. A website and a news item do not a coat-rack make.) I was never convinced of Phelps' wiki-notability in the first place, and I'm not convinced of it now. But now I am seeing a biographical claim dismissed for lack of sources, and sources dismissed because they make a biographical claim. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I would have agree with you, if this was being created now, the problem is there was a lot of (what looked to me like) promotionalism for his book going on. A book that would not (in and of itself) been been enough to have established notability (despite the authors implication). So some of us are now concerned that this is a case of circular referencing (not to out article but his initial claim). Thus it is best if a really top line source makes this claim.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Added to this is the fact that no major source has really picked up on her (still) despite what should be a major claim to notability. And we still have the fact that source like this [] made no mention of the claim. In other words the claim only surfaced as a result of this wiki article, and attempts to keep it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources that have picked up on the claim seem to me entirely proportionate with the significance of the claim (considering the qualifiers "involved with", "part of the team that" or however you want to phrase it). It's not a headline-grabber like the achievement of, say, Mae Jemison. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A few users have published personal attacks on other collaborators and disputed the claims of published authors, there is too much invested in obstructing this article; circular reasoning is all you can expect and I suggest not wasting your time or patience on attempting discussion. cygnis insignis 15:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's what I see as the problem with the Oak Ridge Today (ORT) story:
 * 1) ORT makes the "first" claim, attributed to Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) ("the lab said Tuesday").
 * 2) The ORNL press release in question  makes the "first" claim by quoting International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC).
 * 3) IUPAC makes the "first" claim  in its own voice, without quoting it from or attributing it to any other source. But I recognize the language in the IUPAC write-up as coming from this Wikipedia draft. Compare IUPAC's third paragraph about her navy service with  and . Compare the sentence in our draft ... was part of a three-month process to purify 22 mg of berkelium-249, which was shipped to the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research and combined with calcium-48 in a fusion reaction ... with IUPAC's ... was part of a three-month process to purify berkelium-249, which was combined with calcium-48 in a fusion reaction at the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research.. I'm not saying they're plagiarizing, as there are only so many ways one can phrase certain phrases, but I am saying it raises questions about cytogenesis. That said, it's also possible that they read it here and then confirmed it before publishing the claim. IUPAC and ORNL are very solid sources for the claim, so, if they ratify it... well, just because it's cytogenesis doesn't mean it's not true. For this reason, I am not yet ready to say "let's say she is the first in Wikivoice", but I think it's fine as an attributed statement. ("According to ORNL, IUPAC, and Chapman...", which, in my view, is good enough to say, "She is considered to be the first..." in Wikivoice. Because that much is indisputably true. Whether she is in fact the first, she is definitely widely thought to be the first.) – Levivich  16:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In reporting of her involvement in the discovery of a new element, Phelps is noted to be as the first who was known to be a woman of colour. cygnis insignis 16:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC) tweaked 17:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where consensus is, but it seems the sources are sufficient to support a sentence along the lines of: ... [According to some, Phelps is / According to X, Y, and Z, Phelps is / Phelps is considered to be / Phelps is considered by some to be] the first [woman of color / African-American woman / black woman] [to be involved with / to be part of a team that worked on / to help with] [the discovery / the confirmation of the discovery] of an element. What do our skeptics say? – Levivich 17:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have never said we cannot say that, I in fact I added something must the same myself a while ago [].Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd go with According to IUPAC, ORNL and Chapman, Phelps is the first African-American woman known to have been involved with the discovery of an element. Specifics are better than "some". XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

FYI the press release has been published in The Oak Ridger, the paper of record for Oak Ridge, TN. (IMO, the analysis for the Oak Ridger piece is the same as for Oak Ridge Today, so I don't think this changes much.) – Levivich 20:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And another. "first African-American woman to be associated with the discovery of an element" – Levivich 02:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Link returns "access denied" here. This sort of stuff is all a complete waste of time anyway because of the citogenesis issue. We're at the point where it seems she is going to have to be notable for something else or we alter the criteria. It's a classic example of why Wikipedians need to act responsibly when editing, thinking of the wider implications of what they write - not something that mattered much 15 years ago but the reach of WP (and mirroring, plagiarising etc) is massive now. - Sitush (talk) 06:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said a while back, she may now be notable, for this controversy, not as a scientist.Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That was considered in prior deletion discussions. I refer you to my previous response - Wikipedians need to act responsibly when editing - in questioning whether such navel-gazing is appropriate in the case of a BLP. - Sitush (talk) 09:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes hence my comment "As I said a while back", or in translation "in other conversations". I did not say she was I said she might be. And consensus can change, we do not say "I HAVE SPOKEN!". I would also point out that WP:SOURCEACCESS makes it clear that not being able to access a source is not a valid objection to inclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's a cached version of the source Levivich mentioned. Richard Nevell (talk) 10:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This rather nicely sums up the problems, she was thw first to have "helped" "contributed" and now its "associated with". But at least she now makes the claim.Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , if the cached link Richard provided doesn't work, here is the same story at MSN. – Levivich 14:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

lack of news or books
I have done another google search on both news and books. I am still finding almost nothing about her. This is the most recent [], again its not really about her. This (apparent) lack of real notability still rings alarm bells with me.Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess you missed this link [] from MSN. You and Sitush have made your opinions very clear, repeatedly. Jesswade88 (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I did, but this looks like the same article from the above thread, so its not in fact new.Slatersteven (talk) 09:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Boom
Thank you, Physics Today. "Clarice Phelps purified the berkelium-249 that was used to produce element 117, tennessine. She is thought to be the first African American woman to help discover a chemical element." Ready to request recreation at DRV? – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 17:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A picture caption, from an article in which she is mentioned twice, once in a paragraph with another researcher, and the photo caption. Again which part of this is not trivial coverage?Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this quote summarizes one aspect of the reduced coverage that individuals get for these discoveries: According to Ezold, 61 people from Oak Ridge played a role in the discovery of tennessine, an equal mix of operations staff, support personnel, and researchers—including Phelps, who is thought to be the first African American woman to help discover a chemical element. That doesn’t fit into the textbook narrative of brilliant individuals working solo to forge new elements. I don't know that this is enough to push the article over the top at DRV, it really depends on who sees it. I also had the misfortune of glancing at the author's name for the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Recent developments
It can be seen from the discussion on Women in Red that there have been some important recent developments on this case. She has been Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red and she has been highlighted by Oak Ridge National Laboratory as the first African American woman involved in discovery of an element. This article explains in particular that together with Nathan Brewer "Their inclusion on the “Periodic Table of Younger Chemists” follows an international competition conducted by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) and the International Younger Chemists Network (IYCN), the press release said. Phelps was selected to represent the element einsteinium, and Brewer represents tennessine, the press release said." The article also provides links to related reports. There's also Phelps receives international honor for research, outreach. More background here and here if it's needed.--Ipigott (talk) 11:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Much of this is not new, and again being mention in connection with other people makes you no more notable then they are.Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Nathan Brewer probably also deserves an article as I suggested on WiR. But in the articles quoted above Phelps receives special attention, not only for the discovery of einsteinium but for her work at Oak Ridge and her project leadership. She was also btw involved in the discovery of tennessine, with which Brewer has been associated. I am expanding the draft article along these lines.--Ipigott (talk) 11:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well no more (for example) then the other 10 more younger chemists (not that that is in fact a new claim).Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, these are quite old developments. I brought up the IUPAC listing back in July, and the ORNL claim (which predates ORNL's making it) has been hotly debated since April/May. Your WT:WIR link was lacking a second pair of brackets, I've added them in for you. Having read through the WT:WIR thread (the first one), I find myself remarkably stunned to (for the first time ever) be in agreement with something David Eppstein has said. The hyperbole surrounding the article subject has soured me as well, and it has come across as tokenism. Fram is, as ever, spot on. That said, I can think of far less deserving subjects that have articles, and so that's why I've been in favour of restoring Phelps' article. And yes, I know that OSE is a weak argument. In any case, this won't go anywhere without a DRV. Any admin foolish enough to take individual action will be dragged straight to ArbCom, and that has already lead to a desysopping once. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ohh I agree we do have articles on people less deserving, but then we have articles on people less deserving than the average nurse. The problem is notability, or to be more precise issues that have little to do with the specific merits of this article.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As for notability, it seems to me that if Oak Ridge has repeatedly highlighted her achievements, including the IUPAC Periodic Teble award, and has also pointed out that she is a pioneering African American, then she does seem to be worth covering on Wikipedia. Quite apart from the academic criteria for notability, she has been covered widely in the press, far more so that many of those porn actresses and pop signers who plaster the Wikipedia walls. Since early May the article has been considerably expanded and now contains a lot more detail, backed by many valid references -- even if quite a few come from Oak Ridge where she works.--Ipigott (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * See wp:primary. But I am not sure she has been covered that widely in the press, the Wikipedia controversy was.Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

There have been quite a number in addition to those on the article's deletion. The fact that she is a scientist seems to be a problem. For most people, inclusion in a variety of reports such as those below would normally be considered sufficient for general notability: --Ipigott (talk) 08:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * YWCA Tribute to Women finalists and special award winners, 30 July 2017
 * Phelps wins YWCA Tribute to Women, 19 September 2017
 * Podcast: Scientists share what it takes to make a superheavy element, 24 April 2019
 * ORNL scientist recognized globally for research and commitment to diversity, 7 August 2019
 * The overlooked element makers, 30 September 2019
 * Of those only 2 are solely about her. One is not exactly in depth (and is an old source from 2017. The other comes up as a dead link.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * They don't have to be "solely" about her to be SIGCOV. And "old source"–2017? Say what? It shows WP:SUSTAINED coverage that pre-dates the Wiki controversy. None are coming up as dead links for me. You wrote, I am not sure she has been covered that widely in the press, you've got to be kidding. She was covered in Chemical & Engineering News, Physics Today, Chemistry World, BBC Science Focus, Slate, Forbes, Daily Dot, Fast Company, Undark, the Wire and that's not even counting the local Oak Ridge press and the Washington Post. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 17:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No but it does have to be more then one paragraph about her.Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. WP:BASIC: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability Nevertheless, most of the aforementioned sources have more than one paragraph about her. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich  18:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Highlighted by the Daily Mail
The issue with this article has been mentioned by the Daily Mail, so it may be about to be going more mainstream: ... -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * perhaps, but it might be worth pointing out the daily Myth has had a bit if a history with Wikipedia, and thus this may just be part of that. I will add this just looks like a rehash of old material buy other people, as the figure of 50 pages nominated for deletion (including this one, which has not AFD last week). But this may well be a good example of why the Daily Myth is no longer an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Case in point, the article claims last week, 50 of Dr Wade's entries were flagged by Wikipedia editors for not being prominent enough to stay on the site. The "editors" in question are this blocked webhost and this banned sockpuppet. – bradv  🍁  19:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * At least one of which was not created by Dr Wade [].Slatersteven (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Similarly in the Telegraph:. T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 06:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * And yet again, Dr Phelps is more notable for this article than for her work. Also seems to refer to the same incident above, which was dealt with quickly and rapidly. An SPS troll that was blocked.Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly, this now deleted article falsely claimed that she had a PhD and it turned out she only has a bachelor's degree from 2003, so she's no "Dr." --Tataral (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Highlighted by ChemistryWorld
ChemistryWorld: Female scientists’ pages keep disappearing from Wikipedia – what’s going on?. Jeblad (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Check "This draft has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:" near the top of this page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * its called why are RS only covering these people now? But at least this new article does acknowledge the problem is with lack of coverage of these "notable" women in the media.Slatersteven (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, it's from July. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have a good mind to soapbox now....Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

31 January 2020 Deletion review
I'm a little surprised it wasn't mentioned at this talkpage that it was going on. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Good question - Deletion review does not require notification on draft talk pages and the notification at the AFD page was there but only on the first one. ? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't realize so many people were going to be interested in this. My apologies if I did the deletion review incorrectly. Kaldari (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The original deletion discussion occuppied ~50 editors, had 15000 words written on it, and you didn't realize so many people were going to be interested?!  ——  SN  54129  15:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)