Talk:Diane Maclagan

Feedback from Sean
Do you have any thoughts about what more should be done before moving this page or submitting it for review?ExtandTor (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Right now there's only really one claim to notability (a book with three reviews and over 500 citations, but a more-notable coauthor). I'd like to see at least one other thing (a national-level award, another book, another publication with over 100 citations, promotion to full professor, election to a major academic-society office) to make this draft less weak before pushing to make it an article. So we're waiting less on Wikipedia editing activity and more on the real world. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

More Feedback
There is more evidence of notability --- namely the bronze medal in the International Math Olympiad. Another recent page for Ellen Gethner had only one claim to notability, a MAA Chauvenet Award, shared with two other authors, one of whom (Stan Wagon) is a much senior author who has won many prizes and recognition for articles and books that he has written. Why didn't anyone raise the issue of notability for that page? Mvitulli (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that other page is a little dubious, myself, but maybe it slipped under the radar. One bronze in the IMO is a worthwhile accomplishment but certainly not enough for notability. It's a high-school level competition and, while it's difficult to get on the team from a large country, New Zealand is not large. They give a bronze to participants who ranged from the 25th to 65th percentiles (that is, roughly 3/4 of the participants are at or above the bronze medal level). We've seen articles kept on the basis of IMO performance, but those ones had more like three or four golds. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The bronze alone isn't evidence of notability --- it's just an indicator. I don't think standards are applied evenly and that bothers me. Should I comment on the other page? I think I should. Mvitulli (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/Ana Achúcarro and its followup DRV (or don't, if you value your sanity) for why I want to make extra sure that the articles I create on women are clearly notable by multiple criteria. Because it's predictable that many of them will be attacked and I want to both preempt that and prepare a very strong response when it happens. Fortunately Gethner hasn't been (yet) but if her article were nominated for deletion it might be difficult to save, and that would make it doubly difficult to re-create it later even after she becomes more clearly notable. It's an unfortunate thing about working in today's climate on Wikipedia. However there are also plenty of highly accomplished women who still don't have articles, so I don't think the need to work twice as hard to establish notability is as much of a barrier to article creation as it would seem. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. We will continue to work on this.

New material
I've added more material to this page, as I'm sure you know. I'm wondering if we feel like the article now provides enough evidence of notability. ExtandTor (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Which criterion of WP:PROF do you think she meets? If it's #C1, I'd be worried that the only really highly-cited work is the book and that this would end up with the same fate (redirection to an article on the book) that Articles for deletion/Tameka Hobbs seems headed towards. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)