Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Kopel


 * 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.  Sandstein  20:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Elizabeth Kopel

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:BIO. 4 of the sources in the article are by the article subject. Gnews comes up with mentions she's made in the media, but nothing indepth with her as the subject. Also an orphan article. LibStar (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC) Comment - being an orphan article is not a criteria for deletion AFAIK? MurielMary (talk) 08:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As per WP:ORPHS, it should not be brought up.  Schwede 66  19:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment It may be worth noting that as a researcher/scholar, she may satisfy one of these specific criteria: WP:PROF2: "Their published work has been highly cited relative to their field". Considering that she's tackling very specific issues for a specific location, it's not surprising that her works are not covered globally. However, her work has been cited here, here, and here. --WomenProj (talk) 23:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:PROF2 is a personal draft, not a policy. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC).
 * You are absolutely right, thank you for pointing out. Although it does raise good points about what the somewhat vagueness and lack of diversity and/or inclusivity in the current guideliness. Anyway, if were to strictly stick to WP:NPROF, "Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study. This notability guideline specifies criteria for judging the notability of an academic through reliable sources for the impact of their work: The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources . From the citations of her work, one can argue the relevance and impact of her works in their area, hence it was covered by the PNG news sites I've mentioned above. I can imagine the media wouldn't really cover her as an individual per se as they would with celebrities, but it may be worth assessing the impact of her work, especially in the PNG. Also, there's are just sources that are written in English, I'm wondering whether you may be able to help source/supply others that are in one of the other official languages of PNG, ? --WomenProj (talk) 12:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, this part "Kopel is a senior research fellow and program leader of the Informal Economy Research Program at the Papua New Guinea National Research Institute" may help satisfy this criteria: " The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon " I'm not familiar with the higher or research institutions in PNG, but can maybe someone else can help confirm its standing in the country/region? (note: please excuse me for using the big formatting as I don't know how other formats to highlight the criteria) - WomenProj (talk) 13:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The quoted criterion is specific to professors at major research universities, which it does not appear she is or has ever been. The applicable criterion is #6, but she definitely does not meet that either. While there is a criterion for "[having] a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity", which is where mentions by lay media would come into play, the coverage I am seeing certainly does not overcome the hurdle of C7(a). As for "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources", the point is that being an expert in a very niche subject is admirable but also fully expected of every independent researcher, so is not by itself reason for inclusion. Unfortunately, I am not seeing academic citations of her work that would indicate she has made exceptional scholarly impact within her field broadly construed. Google Scholar has only 17 hits for her, many of which are not even works authored by or discussing her (e.g. showing up in acknowledgements), and I count just 16 citations total (not all of them academic publications, either). JoelleJay (talk) 02:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. See my reasoning above. JoelleJay (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with regret. Try again in the future when more sources may have accumulated. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC).
 * Comment. (1) I'm not sure why Papua New Guinea has such comparatively low wikidata/wikipedia coverage compared to other countries, but it's very striking and presumably there is some systemic bias here. For example, PNG has fewer biographies than Fiji, though PNG has ten times the population - and PNG has sixty times fewer biographies than New Zealand, though PNG's population is double that of NZ. I agree we should try to find non-English sources. (2) Kopel's activity - that of applied social research in a development context - means that she falls awkwardly within WP:ACAD, which tends to assume researchers primarily publishing within an institutional university context. (I also don't think Google scholar is at all reliable in assessing publications in her particular subject domain.) Dsp13 (talk) 14:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty clear that systemic bias is in the picture. The comparatively large Fijian presence probably comes from one source only, sports biographies. Geschichte (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Scopus only had one paper by her, which is why I looked to GS (which I agree is a dismal source for citations). PNG likely doesn't yet have the infrastructure to support large media and academic programs and clearly doesn't have the sports presence of Fiji. We can't force coverage out of something where there just isn't any RS or evidence of scholarly impact. JoelleJay (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2021 (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.