Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth A. Wood


 * 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 keep. Closing this early per WP:SNOWCLOSE. Please observe WP:BEFORE. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 10:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth A. Wood

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article's primary reference is an obituary. Other references are only WP:trivial mentions. Subject does not appear to meet the standards of WP:ACADEMIC, WP:NPEOPLE, or WP:GNG. KDS 4444 Talk  09:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Speaking as the person who wrote the page, I don't see that there is an issue with the primary source being an obit when it was published in a reliable source; this isn't uncommon here on Wikipedia. The notability seems to me established by the facts that: she was the first woman in her Bell Labs department, that she contributed to major innovations, and that there is a science writing award given in her honor. This is a new article and should have been tagged for improvement rather than AfD.Alafarge (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - I fail to see the problem with using an obit as a source, especially since it was an obit written by a professional society, indicating that she was important and notable within the society. She also has an award named after her, and is written up in several books and articles I found with a 5-second Google search. I urge the nominator to withdraw this. Keilana (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Going by WP:NACADEMICS, the subject appears to meet, at a minimum, #3 (fellow of the American Physical Society) and #6 (president of the American Crystallographic Association), and likely #1 (developing the first notation for surface crystallography; see Unertl, Physical Structure, p. 26). Kirill Lokshin (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep easily passes the GNG. --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  16:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - "1942... Physical Research Department of Bell Telephone Laboratories, where she was their first woman scientist" - this is a huge distinction at the nation's premier research lab of the era. In a quick search, I also found this cool photo, of her being the first person that President Lyndon Johnson talked to via videophone and here . Too bad we have to wait for copyright expiration to use those photos. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 16:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    20:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    20:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * snowy Keep Clear case of the nominator failing to do WP:BEFORE and nominating an article as it was being created. Clearly meets GNG and ACADEMIC. Bias in news coverage of women before the present era often results in obituaries being one of the most significant sources for details of their lives. If the provider is a RS, and other documentation corroborates, why would one assume it is trivial? Triviality is not a mark of length, it is a mark of depth. A single sentence saying someone invented, was president, had an award named after them, etc. carries depth and weight regardless of its length. very cool photos. Wonder if they could be used as fair use with the rationale of limited use to improve recognition of a deceased person? SusunW (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets GNG easily. Fuzchia (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. The article as nominated already included multiple nontrivial reliable sources, demonstrating a pass of WP:GNG. The nominator needs to learn the difference between newspaper obituaries that are paid for by the family of the deceased (not relevant for notability) and published obituaries in newspapers or academic journals that are solicited by the publication (as good as any other source for GNG). The nominator's claim that the other sources are trivial is also not true — at least, for me, a trivial mention would be a sentence mentioning the subject in a paragraph about someone or something else, or a source that quotes the subject but is not about the subject. Here, the "Women of Science" paper has a full paragraph entirely about the subject and her accomplishments, and "American Women of Science Since 1900" has a full-length entry, approximately 1.5 pages. In addition, her role as the first female president of the American Crystallographic Association and her honors as fellows of AAAS and APS as well as of two more specialized societies give her multiple clear passes of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - clearly passes GNG. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC).


 * Keep. Important female crystallographer. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC).
 * Speedy keep, per David Eppstein. Nsk92 (talk) 05:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keeo, obviously notable.--Ipigott (talk) 07:53, 13 November 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.