Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarice Phelps (2nd nomination)


 * 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 speedy delete per CSD G4. This is substantially the same as the version deleted in the past AfD and upheld at DRV. Salting as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Clarice Phelps
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Previously deleted on 11 Feb 2019, Articles for deletion/Clarice Phelps (+delrev). Speedy on WP:G4 removed by non-admin (contrast 9 Feb ver on evwiki to 3 April - text quite similar, a few additional refs). Nothing much has changed from the AfD less than two months ago - subject is a GNG failure, and doesn't meet any SNG. Quite simply we are lacking significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. We also have BLP issues due to poor sourcing and WP:NOTADVOCACY given the article is based mainly on PR. While the article has been WP:REFBOMBed many of the sources don't mention the subject, mention the subject in passing, aren't reliable, aren't independent, or a combination thereof. Source analysis (numbering based on this version):

In short - sourcing here isn't even close to establishing notability.Icewhiz (talk) 06:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ref18, ref1, ref9, ref10, ref11, ref22 (duplicate of ref11), ref24 - ORNL website, not independent, PR. In some pieces Phelps doesn't even appear (ref18, ref10).
 * ref2 - trade magazine, copy of ref1 on ORNL, named author is ORNL's Communications Coordinator. Not independent - PR.
 * ref25 - listed on board of yostem.org. Not independent of the subject. yostem itself seems linked to ORNL's outreach (4 of 6 board members are ORNL staff).
 * ref17 ORNL status summary (technical report) - subject is mentioned in a long list of names in the acknowledgments.
 * ref13, ref14, ref19, ref20 - Youtube videos by ORNL. ref13 doesn't even mention the subject. In others she is one of very many speakers in fairly short clips. Not independent, not in depth.
 * ref23 - Youtube video by ORAU at a local middle school. Bunch of volunteering ORNL staff interviewed - Phelps has around 20 seconds in minute 4.
 * ref15, ref16 - doesn't mention the subject. Not even in the group photo in ref16 AFAICT.
 * ref12 - passing mention - single sentence - "In 2009 Clarice Phelps aided in the purification of berkelium, which led to the discovery of element 117 and conformation of element 115". Not in-depth.
 * ref6 - local newspaper, single paragraph (one for each recipient) on local YWCA award. Not in-depth, possibly not independent, not significant.
 * ref21 - Vimeo video with short interviews of YWCA award recipients. Not a RS, not independent.
 * ref3, ref4, ref5 - primary source, subject is mentioned in a list of alumni/students.
 * ref7, ref8 - US navy, doesn't mention the subject.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Pinging participants of prior AfD:                                   .Icewhiz (talk) 06:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Reywas92Talk 07:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete (summoned by ping above), for the same reason I gave the last time: "I'm sorry, but if she's notable, then so must thousands of others who worked on large multinational scientific projects, as Icewhiz wrote. The tennessine article rightly does not mention her, as otherwise it would get bogged down listing hundreds and thousands of names." Also per R8R's comment in the previous AfD. Double sharp (talk) 06:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, this was extensively discussed a few weeks ago and little seems to have changed since. Blythwood (talk) 07:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Per G4, and whack the recreator with a wet trout.
 * This is uncivil and childish. Battleofalma (talk) 10:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Jesswade88 (talk) 10:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete, possibly speedily, notability of the subject has not changed since last AfD, as demonstrated by the lack of improvement in reliable independent sourcing. (Full disclosure: I heard the ping.) —Kusma (t·c) 08:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of souces to establish that she is either a notable research scientist and for lack of coverage that could pass WP:GNG.  Despite a disingenuous statement by editor who quickly re-created this page:  (recreated page that was deleted. I really want this to stay up, so please advise where I need to improve instead of just nominating for deletion.) the requirements  for WP:SIGCOV and notability were explained in detail when we ran this drill a few weeks ago.  New sources and accomplishments have not appeared.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt. Nothing has changed since last AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC).
 * Speedy delete per G4. No substantial difference.    SITH   (talk)   10:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources do demonstrate she is a notable research scientist. I acknowledge there are not enough external sources; and am trying to improve it. I'm concerned by this "Despite a disingenuous statement by editor who quickly re-created this page" - how am I disingenuous? I have worked on the science and citations on this page, and am *literally* only doing it to better improve Wikipedia Jesswade88 (talk) 10:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. There would seem to be quite a lot of sources here, and while some may not be very high level sources, the amount of coverage for a female research scientist as well as her awards would indicate that she is notable to me. Jwslubbock (talk) 10:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * - Source here are PR flap, and many don't even mention the subject. However I am somewhat confused by your statement on awards (plural) - could you please enumerate the awards the subject has received, and elaborate on why they are significant? Icewhiz (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by PR flap? Have you even looked at the links on ORNL or dismissed them all as 'flap' and clicked to nominate for deletion? Whilst they may be from her employer, they aren't overly celebratory and just describe what she does. Jesswade88 (talk) 11:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have indeed examined every single reference in the article (including watching the promotional YouTube videos). While her name on a list here or her fairly generic staff profile are fairly drab and routine - all the rest is promotional content written by ORNL's PR team (or person - not sure it is a team) to publicize their STEM outreach efforts in local schools. As it is quite evident that most of the coverage here, such as it is, is from her employer - it is rather clear our subject isn't of encyclopedic or public interest. Frankly - you could find school teachers with more coverage than this. Icewhiz (talk) 11:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Who? Can you name some? Jesswade88 (talk) 11:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Off-topic and wouldn't want to give anyone ideas - but it would be trivial to find local school teachers with a number of pieces/profiles on them in their school's website (as well as in-depth coverage in multiple yearbooks and in the student newspaper), a minor award from a local organization, and a few items in the local press (even full length ones - which you're lacking here). Look at - our Louisiana Shreveport deletion sorting list and you'll see local figures with more coverage than this subject getting deleted in a rather routine Wikipedia manner.Icewhiz (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * But have these teachers contributed to the discovery of an element? Jesswade88 (talk) 11:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Certainly. According to our subject on the ORNL website: "Phelps said her own love of science was sparked early by a microscope set and encyclopedia-based science kit given to her by her mother and kindled by her middle and high school science teachers.". It would probably be trivial to find high-school science teachers in the Knoxville/Oak Ridge area who educated/mentored several ORNL employees who contributed, in a manner similar to our subject, to the background work around element discovery. A pupil's success is much impacted from his teacher. Furthermore, we could shoot higher - high school teachers of Nobel laureates, congressional medal of honor recipients, and possibly multiple notable students. Icewhiz (talk) 12:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My great-grand uncle Jack contributed to the discovery of the atomic bomb. He was shop teacher in the Engineering School at New York's City College when the Manhattan Project was located in the physics building at Columbia. He was recruited to work on the project. He ground and supplied the lenses the physicists needed. He did this for years and it was important work and the fact that he was part of it has even been even written up a little over the years.  Have I ever started a page for Uncle Jack?  No.  He was a wonderful old gentleman but being one of the guys who ground the lenses on a big project like Manhattan Project does not make an individual notable.  Even though there are. WP:RS sources that document that Uncle Jack  was on the project, and that he earned civic awards for a number of things  unrelated to the Project (including an identity-related thing,) was active in his community - as recorded in local papers, and so forth.  Lots of good people are not notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's great, but you aren't supposed to make your family members' wikipedia pages, right? Jesswade88 (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, if my great-grand uncle had been a notable scientist, or a notable City College shop teacher, I don't think there would be a problem with my writing well-sourced page about him. The point is that Uncle Jack, like Clarice Phelps, is not notable.  They both fail WP:GNG and they both fail WP:SCHOLAR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Userfy. Let Jess Wade work on getting this article improved to a level where notability concerns can be met without having to waste time on pointless Wikiprocesses. jps (talk) 11:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Info The nominator has been engaging in what appears to be a form of back-door negative canvassing or intimidating behaviour, refer to diff1, diff2, diff3. This behaviour is likely to put people off wanting to express any opinion here or contribute to improving the article. --Fæ (talk) 12:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Apparently that's okay. There are different rules for Icewhiz than there are for other editors. Jesswade88 (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It is legitimate to notice when editors suddenly show up on obscure discussions about topics not in the news, especially in a case where the 1st AfD was canvassed on social media.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I used twitter to ask people to improve the page. I don't think it's much different to your collective call to arms to come and vote 'Delete' Jesswade88 (talk) 13:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Walk that back, it is a lie to claim that I made a collective "call to arms to come and vote 'Delete'"E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not you E.M.Gregory, sorry. I meant other members of this discussion. Jesswade88 (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging editors who participated in the recent AfD is legitimate, it would only be problematic if an editor pinged only those with whom he agrees.  It is off-wiki canvassing on social media that is verboten.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

UTC)
 * Just to confirm, he’s ‘pinging’ all editors who challenge his opinion, because apparently that’s how Wikipedia editor democracy works.Jesswade88 (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Jesswade88, I suggest you take a deep breath and check your facts before flinging serious accusations at fellow editors. I spot-checked your assertion, and readily saw that Icewhiz pinged editors who voted both "keep" and those who voted "delete".  Your assertion is a flat out untruth, a slanderous and serious lie. I urge you to strike it and apologize to Icewhiz. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete and Salt. Not notable for stand alone article; was only scientific research team; fails WP:PROF, and WP:GNG. Kierzek (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Tagging page because article creator states above that she has advertised this discussion on twitter. Salt needed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments – I've requested a history merge with the deleted page so that we can see exactly how it's changed since the last version that was deleted. Salting seems like overkill when you're talking about one recreation by one editor. If there's a problem with the recreation, better to address it with the single editor responsible rather than salt the article, as even if it is deleted again here, the subject may yet become notable in the future (she is young and not yet at the peak of her career). I'm especially dismayed to see accusations of sexism, racism, and–of all things–transphobia on the article's talk page, which seem to be spilling over here, as well as–again–canvassing concerns. FWIW, I'm not at all surprised that editors would watchlist Jesswade88's talk page (I do, and that's how I found this AfD back in round 1). It doesn't necessarily indicate canvassing. (And if someone asked me how I came to find a certain AfD, even if it was polite and non-confrontational, I'd probably be annoyed by the question.) However, if, like me, you lean towards wanting this article kept, the ad hominem shitshow only hurts that cause. I personally think it killed the article's chances in the last AfD. This conversation must stay focused on the content and we should not be commenting on editors' motivations or intentions. It's childish to accuse someone of racism or sexism because they nominate an article about a black woman for deletion, and such unfounded personal attacks seriously detract from our ability to identify and remedy the actual systemic biases that exist here. Because I do want this article to be kept if at all possible, and because I want a fair shake at convincing my fellow editors that it should be kept, if I see personal attacks surrounding this AfD again, for my part, I may report editors to ANI or Arbcom. I am waiting until I can see the history before !voting. Leviv&thinsp;ich 15:18, 4 April 2019 (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.