Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carrie Diaz Eaton


 * 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 no consensus. Some of the criteria in WP:PROF is rather subjective, so there is a healthy amount of disagreement over whether she clears the bar based on individual editors' interpretation of the guideline. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Carrie Diaz Eaton

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Potentially non-notable mathematician. Very low h-index, very low paper cites.  scope_creep Talk  20:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  20:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  20:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Sort of agree with nom. Only think is she is a director of Qubes, but how notable this is to meet nprof. I don't know. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete an early career mathematician who does not meet notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete — is apt in his rationale & also per . Celestina007 (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. I agree that she does not pass WP:PROF. She also does not pass #C3, as her doctoral fellowship, teaching-development fellowship, and leadership-institute fellowship are not the kinds of fellows described in that criterion (major scholarly societies for which fellowship is a highly selective honor). They look more like financial support for students and certificate of attendance in teaching and leadership programs than like honors for high scholarly achievement. So the only remaining question is whether she passes #C2 for the John Jungck Prize for Excellence in Education . It appears to be an award at the national or international level; the question is whether it's a "highly prestigious" award as required by #C2. It does appear to be the top educational award of the SMB (their other awards are for service or research). Since it's an educational award, we can look at whether it's given for the kind of high achievement in education that would also pass #C4, or for lower-level work. The citation says that it's for her creation of an open-access web hub for educational materials (QUBES), for local mentorship, and for being the co-editor of an edited volume, among which only QUBES looks potentially significant to me. There's also some nontrivial (but non-independent) coverage of QUBES at . It doesn't look like enough to me, but with better sourcing of QUBES I could be convinced to change my mind. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Associate professor since 2018 with a h-index of 3 . There is some media coverage, but mostly local, of a 380K$ grant for open education in QUBES/SCORE, but this is not sufficient for GNG.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 06:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Co-Founder of Qubes, first of its kind Open Educational Resource hub, making a major contribution to STEM education. Especially relevant in this time of pandemic (satisfies criteria 3&4.) Member of two under-represented groups in STEM: women and Latinx, notable w/o academic criteria. Nationally recognized, featured communicator at Mathematics Association of America . FWIW: Google Scholar is a black box and as a librarian I don't find it reliable by itself. Impact factor measurements are also notoriously unreliable, especially for women and minorities. -Skome (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC) — Skome (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * None of those things are notability criteria. And it is irrelevant whether the impact factor is too low to pass notability or too unreliable to be used; either way we have no evidence of notability from it. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Project director of Math Mamas, a unique community for women in mathematics with children sponsored by the American Mathematical Society. Notable due to underrepresentation of women in math and relevant to criteria 1 and 4. Has been interviewed for notable media outlets including Washington Post and Science Magazine  which also satisfies criteria 7. Agree with  regarding impact factor measurements. -Dany_waller (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC) — Dany_waller (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. Math Mamas project has national prominence. PRIMUS is the highest profile journal for teaching of mathematics by mathematicians (as opposed to education journals focused on K-12 teaching). A position on the PRIMUS editorial board combined with a national teaching award is a clear profile of a notable collegiate mathematics teacher. As Dany_waller notes, Diaz Eaton's teaching expertise has also been recognized by general media outlets.-UrsulaGeorges (talk) 15:33, 27 Jun 2020 (UTC)
 * A position on an editorial board is something true of most academics and useless for distinguishing the notable ones. A position as editor-in-chief would indicate notability through WP:PROF but she does not have that position. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have some independent sources for what the Math Mamas project is/does and that confirm the national prominence of the project? I tried to find background and sources using google search/google news and wasn't successful, but would be happy to take a look if you could point them out. Currently the page only cites the subjects profile page at her employ to support the existence/significance of this project and the role of the subject in the project. MoneciousTriffid (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep/Improve Agree with above Impact Factor has a bias that places like Wikipedia can choose to enhance or work around. I think she meets notability requirements for founding of Math Mamas and her work founding QUBES which can be amplified in the article. Jessamyn (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete with regret. Just not passing WP:Prof. Maybe WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC).
 * Delete not notable as an academic, Qubes could be but the sources provided so far just do not show that.jraimbau (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Just to note that looks like this was mentioned on the subject's Twitter feed, but I don't think it's a case of WP:MEATPUPPET. Ignoring that, I'm uncertain as to notability, leaning slightly towards weak keep for QUBES work under WP:GNG. Borderline for the award. Simply being on a board isn't really a sufficient reason, and academic track record is a bit WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I placed a not a vote template on this page as a heated Twitter conversation is running in parallel to this AfD.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;]) 10:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * could you give a link? Xxanthippe (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC).
 * User:Xxanthippe, this twitter thread which also has at least one personal attack against the nominator.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;]) 12:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That twitter thread also makes clear that the creation of the article involves significant levels of self-promotion by the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's not ding the subject or the AfD for her lack of Wikipedia knowledge. All I see is a woman who has no idea how this works asking questions like Kj cheetham was alluding to. The thread also has a Twitter user remind her not to edit her own entry. So "heated" is a matter of perspective. Donna Spencer talk-to-me ⛅ 17:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete For the subject, I don't see the independent media coverage to meet the GNG standard, and looking at academic notability criteria, 3-6 and 8 clearly don't apply. Others have pointed out the lack of evidence for criterion 1. Mathematics is a low(er) citation field, but being an associate professor with an h-index of 3 still don't qualify. For criterion 2, her most significant award appears to be the John Jungck Prize for Excellence in Education, which appears to be a rather newly created prize where the suject is only the 3rd recipient. That leaves criterion 6: "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." I'm guessing this is where the users discussing Math Mamas are making their case? However I haven't been able to find independent coverage/sources indicating the impact of this organization or what the organization actually is. There was a special issue of a journal where the subject was one of several co-editors, and a recently launched blog with the same title but where the subject is not listed on the editors or about page. MoneciousTriffid (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Since this AfD has been subject to canvassing on Twitter it should be closed by an experienced administrator. The BLP seems to have been an outcome of an inadequately supervised editathon. The advice given should be always go first for the low hanging fruit i.e. those candidates whose notability is so well established that blowback will not occur, as it has in this case. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC).
 * Keep. Mathematics is a field with notoriously low h-indexes. #C2: The Society for Mathematical Biology is arguably the most important professional society in her field and she won the third ever John Jungck Prize for Excellence in Education award, which is the only award for outstanding teaching they have. The inaugural winner was James Keener, one of the most prominent living mathematical biologists. #C4 Diaz Eaton's work towards redesigning undergraduate quantitative mathematical biology education (through QUBES and other initiatives) has affected higher education at large, several institutions, and the field of mathematical biology and has been strongly supported by the National Science Foundation and others. #C7 Her work, teaching, and advocacy have taken center stage in prominent issues in mathematics education and the mathematics community, such as diversity initiatives, quantitative literacy, and misinformation. - AlwaysInRed (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep & improve: Although issues of WP:TOOSOON are valid, I agree with Jessamyn & Skome. Its better to take a step back and improve the article IMHO, than summarily delete it. Donna Spencer talk-to-me ⛅ 17:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - The content is interesting, substantial and verifiable, but fails a narrow pass/fail reading of WP:PROF. Since the article is close to the line and the subject seems well-placed professionally, I'm inclined to be generous and hope that the article improves as her career advances to reach notability. User:Xxanthippe raises a valid BLP maintenance concern: in the first instance, I am inclined to prune the article. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2020 (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.