Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amiee Shelton


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Amiee Shelton

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Assistant prof at a small liberal arts college, has not even been awarded her PhD yet. Several references and awards, but none establish notability. Hairhorn (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Since when is a PhD a required accolade for notability? Look at Michael Scully from the same institution. This page has been up for over three years, and was just update with additional information from what I can see on the history. Why do you now believe it to be unwarranted? The PR awards may seem small, but they are indeed national awards, from a national body of experts.
 * I was just made aware of this issue. I am a prof. of PR of a small liberal arts university who has has indeed won several awards for teaching, and have published, speak at engagements etc...all expected of a Professor. I was on television prior to this career, indeed, but I do not have the notability for a dictionary. Thank you Mom of five and the others who added this entry (page?) but I do not think a discussion of my qualifications needs to be made public, and I find it embarrassing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by PRProfesor (talk • contribs) 00:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

it may also be noted that students/donors etc use the internet for information concerning their professors, and reputation of institution, this pages allows them to learn about the information from an unbiased source (unlike marketing pages of the institutions). This page presents accurate information. — Momoffive (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep-the addition of peer review journal articles and speaking engagement.


 * "* "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]


 * There are sources attached to this entry that address subject, albeit in varying detail. The number of sources, however is above those most assistance professor have as noted by other sites.


 * "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

There are numerous sources providing verifiable evaluation. With the addition of published works in all forms- her papers and blog for instance.


 * "Sources,"[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.


 * Her publications as recently added meet this guideline, as my investigation yielded that the journal is indeed 'peer reviewed', as well as a publicised speaker for PRSA.


 * "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.[4]


 * all content provided on this entry appear to bypass these listed items, as some of them are press releases, self-published material or advertising etc.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Momoffive (talk • contribs) 19:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, you're still confusing what counts toward notability – in this sort of case, it's necessary to show impact, as David has explained below. You can add speaking engagements and such, but this is what academics do as a matter of course and, as such, does not figure into impact. Instead, there must be some demonstration that others have "taken note" of this person's work – for example, there are lots of citations to the person's publications, they've solved a major outstanding problem, there are a lot of institutions that hold this person's monographs, etc. We've seen none of that so far, e.g. GS and WoS both show 0 hits, WolrdCat shows no texts, etc. GoogleDocs and conference programs are simply not sufficient support. I'm sorry to say that these are pretty definitive findings. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC).


 * Delete - fails WP:PROF, WP:GNG.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Art is WP:SPA-created, filled with original research/POV, and makes no credible claim of notability. The strongest assertion is probably being quoted here, but it's only a few talking-points like Shelton "agreed that Facebookers have to be particularly careful with the new 'Places' feature". Art is filled with other trivia that might be mistaken for notability, like student and trade association awards, having a notable student in your class, or presenting papers at a conference. Agricola44 (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC).
 * Delete. A recent (maybe not even quite yet earned) Ph.D. with no evidence of passing WP:PROF. Re Momoffive's comment about "required accolades": it is certainly not required, but in the context of an academic biography the lack of a Ph.D. or more often the recency of a Ph.D. leads to the default assumption that WP:PROF is not yet in reach, since most of the WP:PROF criteria are more aimed at the sort of accomplishments one might expect of a full professor at a major research university. That is to say, we need extraordinary evidence of accomplishment to go beyond this default, and I'm not seeing it in this case. Various minor accomplishments are cited but none of them seem to pass the bar for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

A speaking engagement added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Momoffive (talk • contribs) 17:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't tell my children that this professor has not had any impact...I do believe they would start a riot. I find it very interesting the other types of entries on this site, yet this particular one has been deemed weak. Adviser of the month for all U.S. Universities is fairly impact(ful?). Only 12 people a year receive that, and that is from all universities with a housing system....thus pretty much all universities. Unless all other entries are examined this carefully, Wikip has lost any respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Momoffive (talk • contribs) 23:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I cannot see any category of notability that is satisfied. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC).


 * Delete, does not seem notable in the general sense and fails WP:PROF. Also, I reformatted some of the text above to improve readability. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:51, 3 October 2010 (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.