Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Losh


 * 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. Consensus is that the article meets the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 06:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth Losh

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability Ucsd1234 (talk) 06:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Doing general due diligence as described in the article deletion page, Losh has written a few books, but no other books really mention her. She is the author of multiple academic articles in Google Scholar, and they are good. However, these articles are not substantive enough to warrant a Wikipedia page. She does plenty in femtech, but the article was written at a conference where she played an integral role, where someone likely felt her presence was more powerful than her impact outside the conference.
 * User:Ucsd1234, Welcome to WP. It is unusual to see a new account apparently created for the sole purpose of nominating an article for deletion.  And intriguing to have a SPA named ucsd created for the purpose of deleting the newish page of a UCSD professor.  If you are Elizabeth Losh and are using this as a method of deleting the article because yo would prefer not to have a WP article, you should know that deletion can be requested by academics who, like Losh, are not household names.  If, however, you have a personal grudge....E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep. The article is promotionally written — e.g. the pull quotes from the reviews appear to be chosen as quotes that make the books good rather than ones that tell us anything useful about their content — and that should be fixed. But getting reviewed at Times Higher Education is something of a coup, and although I can't find quite as high profile reviews for her other book Virtualpolitik it also has some published reviews . That may be enough for WP:AUTHOR, at least. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep What User:David Eppstein said. Plus this review  in Nature (journal).  She clearly passes  WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Not sure why her multiple academic articles (here) are not considered enough for her to be kept. Some of the articles have been cited 20+ times. I think it's impressive for someone who is still early on in her career. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Fas as I can see, this does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. Dismal citation record (even for someone who is early career in a low citation-density field), but David Eppstein makes a good case that this squeaks by AUTHOR. --Randykitty (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I think this article, which was created during an edit-a-thon needs the help of more experienced Wikipedians. The reasons for keeping it include it came out of a Feminism edit-a-thon and it is obviously a stub which needs fleshing out.  The subject of the article passes notability tests.  Let's try to help this new Wikipedian by making this a better article as it is demoralizing for new Wikipedians to have their early attempts at contributing to Wikipedia AfD. TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. You can't vote twice. Kraxler (talk) 01:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC) (Original deletion recommender.) Thanks for the comments -- I am fine keeping the page as long as someone improves the page. As far as a grudge goes, I do know her, but I don't hold a grudge -- I am a huge Wiki advocate and would love her to have her page, but I know this was promotional, and I don't think it's right for promotional material to be put up. I definitely do not want to demoralize the original author, who is probably a fan of Losh. The whole reason that no one is commenting on the delete page (and this is going on for more than the usual 1 week) is because she's not notable outside this narrow field. So far, we have a few commenters, including a "vintage feminist," and David Eppstein, who is a UCI computer science professor and may (or may not) be in the same knowledge space as Liz Losh. I mainly think that many of the people in this small intellectual space think she's bigger than what she is. But improve the page so that it's not promotional, and I think it will be a good contribution. Ucsd1234
 * Please comment on the article, not the other editors participating in the discussion. Kaldari (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I was responding to accusations in above comments. All of the people in this discussion are great people.  The article needs to be gutted and completely rewritten because it is shrill and promotional -- for a respected but relatively not well known academic.  She is not WP:NOTABLE Ucsd1234  — Preceding undated comment added 06:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a hint: using the word "shrill" for a female professional is no longer the preferred nomenclature. It comes across as sexist. You might want to update your vocabulary. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 11 June 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.