Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aline Cumming


 * 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. This has already had over 2 weeks here and in the absence of any (current) opinions in favour of keeping I am closing as Delete. Michig (talk) 11:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Aline Cumming

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. The claim she was Executive Officer of the CPHC is unsourced and seems dubious - the CPHC doesn't have any executive officers, just a committee according to its web site. It could be her role predates them being run by committee but it's unclear as dates aren't given, their web site doesn't mention her and it's unsourced. No indication why she was made a honorary fellow, just an entry in a list. And only one of fifteen co-editors of an update to an existing glossary. I.e. falls short of WP:NACADEMICS and WP:NAUTHOR. Searches turns up nothing better. JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 02:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (chew)  @ 14:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Keep Delete Keep – This cite shows that she was Executive Officer in 2002. I added it and edited the article to make clear that she is one of 15 co-editors. That doesn't quite qualify under WP:NACADEMICS #C8, which wants a "head or chief editor". So that leaves #C6, for Executive Officer, which would depend on whether the CPHC is a "major academic institution or major academic society". I don't know, but the earlier cite as of 2002 said that "There are 106 departments in the UK that are eligible to join CPHC, and 103 of them belong." so maybe it qualifies. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – Closer inspection reveals that "In 1995 it was decided to employ an Administration Assistant, whose role developed into that of Executive Officer and who also provides support for the Treasurer." So it looks like this post was not the Chair, but the person who runs the office. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I found that when looking for sources, about the only thing with her name it on the web site if I recall. It was written by her so not reliable secondary source. The biographical information consists of one short sentence, so hardly in depth.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 21:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, here is another version of the article, as published in the newsletter of the Computing Research Association. Which is a North American organization, so it was "one of an occasional series of articles describing computing research in other countries." Still, they were affiliated organizations and she was invited to contribute. Unless there was no editorial control over that newsletter I think we can assume that she was who it says she was. That said, it looks like the position itself is not the kind envisioned by #C6, so I am changing my !vote to delete. – Margin1522 (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On third thought, I am changing my !vote again. Sorry, this is a borderline case and I'm trying to be fair here. I've added one more cite which I think gives a better idea of what she's done in her career. It's not strictly academic, so I'm abandoning the NPROF criteria and going with the fact she was influential in setting IT education and training policies at two important organizations in the UK. We don't have criteria for that, so it's a judgment call. At the CPHC she may not have been the head of the organization, but she was a key person in actually running it, as indicated by the way they upgraded her title. At the BCS she was in charge of education and career training programs, a key part of its mission. About her role as editor of the glossary, it's not the kind of content that would be contributed by a computer scientist, so she may well have had a major hand in writing and/or editing the book. And presumably she was made an Honorary Fellow for her contributions to education. Of course there's no ironclad proof for either of those things. But I do think that in assessing notability we should make our best effort to be fair and guard against underestimating as well as overestimating, and it just seems like the most reasonable interpretation to me. So. We don't have criteria for IT educators, but if we did I think she would pass. If someone objects that we don't have those criteria and therefore she fails, I won't argue against that. – Margin1522 (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But the sources still fall far short of what\s needed for WP:GNG. There are two things written by her, so not reliable secondary sources, not biographical except they have brief biographical information, so not significant coverage. The other references have even less information about her. I don't doubt that she has been involved in the BCS as noted in the second of the two articles she wrote. But that she's been involved in the BCS for a decade or more but no-one has written about her, except that brief biographical information, suggests she is not notable.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 14:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine. As I said above, it's accepted practice that we can use an organization's statements about itself as a source for non-controversial facts, such as who its officers are. The second biographical note was by BCS, not the author, so that applies. About GNG, sure. But for various occupations we have carve-outs from GNG that specify exceptions. If a rugby player plays in a professional league or an academic edits a journal, he gets an article automatically. That's regardless of GNG or any type of coverage. It's actually quite rare for a journal editor to be written up, qua editor, by a secondary source. Doesn't matter, he still gets the article on that basis alone. But we have large gaps in these carve-outs. For example, no explicit criteria for public servants. I'm saying that to be fair to individuals in those occupations we could give them equal treatment and consider whether they have been notable in their profession. But if someone says "no criteria, no article" then that's OK, I'm not going to press it. – Margin1522 (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

They aren't really carve outs or exceptions. Guidelines such as WP:PROF, WP:ATH, describe additional evidence that can be used for notability, in fields where it can be hard to find general secondary sources (as mainstream media is less interested in academics and sportspeople, than politicians and movie stars say). If that evidence doesn't exist then WP:GNG still applies, as it does to fields without special guidelines such as civil servants. As for being fair the fairest thing especially for living people is to only create articles based on in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Otherwise the danger is the article will be inaccurate and unrepresentative, missing out on their major achievements and milestones.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 17:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I see your point. Once the professor gets his article despite a complete lack of GNG, there is still a lot to write about in the form of reactions to his books and articles. But not in this case. As it stands, the article is rewritten, resourced and verifiable. To me it doesn't look out of place on Wikipedia. But it still doesn't give much sense of what she did. We've done our best. If the material isn't there it's not our fault. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete A sweep of British news media did not reveal anything. Neither did a sweep of computer related news or education related sources, suggesting this subject does not meet the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.