Talk:Diane Kunz

Speedy deletion
This article was nominated for speedy deletion on the grounds that the article did not assert importance. A claim that she has written several books is an assertion of notability. She has written at least one book which has been reviewed and articles as well. She has also been mentioned in journals in relation to her failure to win tenure at Yale. She should be nominated at AfD if people want to suggest deletion. Capitalistroadster 06:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I apologise - I was on a roll deleting vanity pages. I'll send it to AfD - Gobeirne 07:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
I had originally wanted to delete this article, as the content appeared to be a non-encyclopaedic, unverifiable vanity page with multiple contributions from User:CMK102485, who is likely to be the subject's own son. After taking several deep breaths, I've cleaned it up a bit instead. The article is now slightly more encyclopaedic, and makes reference to the Yale tenure controversy which was not even mentioned in the original. However, further revision is needed. - Gobeirne 19:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Protest
I resent the implication that the article I wrote was a vanity page. Yes I am the subject's son but my mother is a noted professor and author as well as a conference facilitator at New York Law School. I feel far too much has been removed from this article, I understand the pictures couldn't remain but most of her life has been cut out. I think at least half should be put back, if not more. The implication that this article did not contribute to the wikipedia forum particuarly burns me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CMK102485 (talk • contribs)
 * I understand that you had good intentions in writing this article. It's fantastic that you're contributing to Wikipedia. However, I urge you to re-read your original article and consider whether you think the information contain therein was really relevant to the rest of the world. Do we really need to know what kindergarten your mother went to? Your original article was biased and contained far too much unverifiable, irrelevant, personal information. I agree that my original assessment of Dr. Kunz's notability was wrong (hence my decision to re-write the article instead of pursue its deletion), but you are probably not in the best position to write a balanced encyclopaedia entry on this particular subject:
 * All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This means that the unfortunate and probably unfair denial-of-tenure episode should not be side-stepped with the phrase: "Dr. Kunz decided a shift to part time work was warranted".
 * Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources, which should be cited. The first few paragraphs were particularly unverifiable.
 * Wikipedia is not for self-promotion: The arbitration committee ruled on February 17, 2006 that: "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so.". To restate this, I'll paraphrase Autobiography and say "Avoid writing or editing articles about your mother, since we all find objectivity especially difficult when family members are concerned."
 * In short, it is my opinion that you should read Vanity guidelines, and the policies mentioned above, if you wish to contribute further to this article - Gobeirne 21:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

AFD and DRV

 * Articles_for_deletion/Diane_Kunz, the last AFD of the article
 * Link to DRV discussion. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Tenure controversy
It is unclear to me why the tenure controversy section was removed, apparently at least twice. The material clearly meets WP:BLP standards, and at least in the last version, was sourced to the Yale Alumni Magazine, a reliable source. A Google search turns up coverage of the matter in a number of widely-read sources, reputable sources, including the Yale Daily, Harvard Crimson, Chronicle of Higher Education, and College Literature (a scholarly journal).

Reviewing the sources and citations for the subject's career, it appears that she is primarily notable for being the center of a public controversy regarding tenure and the role of women in academia, and only secondarily (if at all) for her academic work and publications, which considered on their own might not even pass the "average professor" test (WP:PROF).

Unless a good argument can be made otherwise, I plan to re-add the section, with the additional sources noted above. --MCB 06:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)