Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Weise


 * 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  22:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth Weise

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable reporter. Mrfrobinson (talk) 03:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Total lack of sources other than a bio from her employer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete She's a working journalist, who no doubt does her job well. But that is no more notable than being a working civil servant, academic, dentist, etc. who does their job well. She doesn't hold a high editorial position or appear to have won any journalism awards. I can find no articles about her. Only profiles of herself and newspaper articles written by her. Her book, A Parent's Guide to Mandarin Immersion, has negligible library holdings and no reviews in major publications. It's published by "Chenery Street Books" and appears to be their sole publication. Weise lives on Chenery Street in San Francisco, suggesting the book may be self-published. Note that she is not to be confused with Elizabeth Reba Weise, an academic specialising in gender issues. Voceditenore (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, We may as well use that criteria in regards to sports figures or any other profession--ie, they are just doing their job. We need to see if her award is notable. A fellowship from Stanford seems notable. Being a major correspondent seems notable.Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Why stop with sports figures? I foresee chefs, actors, directors, doctors, lawyers, scientists, comedians, artists, stockbrokers, philosophers, politicians, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera... !!! --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 02:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Re "chefs, actors, directors, doctors, lawyers, scientists, comedians, artists, stockbrokers, philosophers, politicians", they should be covered here not simply for doing their job well, but because they have received significant third party coverage or have been recognized as being at the top of their profession via the positions they have held, e.g. fellow of a learned society where such a position is highly selective and externally nominated, being editor-in-chief of a major newspaper, etc. or major awards received, etc. That particular fellowship at Stanford is given to 20 people per year, every year. It is not significantly selective. Like all graduate fellowships of this type, the recipients themselves apply for it (they are not externally nominated). Selection is normally based on an evaluation how well you write your application, e.g. in the Stanford Journalism School, the selection is based on:
 * We select fellows who identify and articulate a challenge in journalism that they want to work on addressing. We expect them to arrive in the program with more questions than answers and we seek people who are eager to experiment and to change course based on what they learn along the way.
 * Frankly, such fellowships are literally a dime a dozen in academia and are not indicative of either general notability or even notability within a profession. Voceditenore (talk) 11:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Then Wikipedia should make more exacting rules about notability. Like must have 10 reliable sources. What I see most, is that notability comes down to like or dislike over anything else. Oh, and, (my favorite one), since I don't know anything about that subject, it must not be notable! --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 21:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In this case, it is quite straightforward, requiring no further "more exacting rules". There is not even one reliable source independent of the subject that discusses her in depth (WP:BASIC). Nor is there any source that attests to her passing any of the alternative criteria at WP:ANYBIO or at WP:JOURNALIST. Read them. This isn't even borderline. Are you seriously suggesting that those of us opining "delete" here are doing so simply because we don't like journalists or because we know nothing about journalism (or academia for that matter)? Thaddäus Troll is just one example of multiple articles that I've written about journalists and writers. I have also written multiple articles on academics, argued "keep" and/or rescued many more at AfD, and am a retired academic myself. Voceditenore (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing on Wikipedia is straight forward! WP:IAR --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 00:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per voceditenore.4meter4 (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - as not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Why would a reporter that is a fellow of the John S. Knight Journalism at Stanford be considered not notable on Wikipedia? Ottawahitech (talk) 06:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Holding a fellowship or being a past fellow does not make one immediately notable. Mrfrobinson (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - nothing in searches to show they pass notability criteria. 's analysis gives an almost perfect explanation.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Question: which wp:notability criteria are you referring to? please ping me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottawahitech (talk • contribs) 16:20, 25 November 2015‎


 * Keep. Agree that neither her journalism nor her fellowship is sufficient for notability, per Voceditenore. While her book is not mentioned in the WP article, it does give her notability, and notability is an attribute of the person and not of the article. Her book, "A Parent's Guide to Mandarin Immersion", is a bible of Chineese language education for children in the United States, and with the large immigrant Chineese population, there are many weekend and evening schools teaching Mandarin to tens of thousands of children. Here are links to a few of the many Asian organization covering the book: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. The book also has multiple reviews on Amazon. Such a book is obviously not reviewed by major publications, just as a book on astrophysics, lesbian socialism or Pokemón isn't, but notability is not the same as mainstream. What matters is that the person is notable within the subject area in which he or she is active. If not, almost all scientists need to be removed from Wikipedia. The beauty of Wikipedia is that we can find information about obscure but notable things, like the author of the most important book for how to teach Chinese to kids living outside of China. I can understand why the short article was nominated for deletion, but with some expansion to cover the book that the thorough investigation by Voceditenore unearthed, the Elizabeth Weise article will be a wonderful contribution to the Wikipedia Asian Month . Martinogk (talk) 05:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Martinogk, this isn't really multiple independent coverage by Asian organizations and certainly not sufficient to establish the book's notability. The first is from a parents' association in the  San Mateo School District announcing that Weise was coming to speak  at their Parent Education Night. The second is on the Mandarin Immersion Parents Council blog written by Weise herself with quotes from the book jacket blurbs. (In fact, the majority of posts on that blog are by Weise.) The fourth is simply an advert from a bookstore selling the book. The fifth is a brief review on the website of a parents' group at an  elementary school in Orange County. The third one, from the Asian  Society, is the only one which I would consider from an Asian organization per se, and it's not a review. It's a two-sentence description. It certainly doesn't describe it as " a bible of Chinese language education for children in the United States". Chinese immersion teaching in the US is not an esoteric topic. It receives quite a lot of coverage in both the mainstream and specialist press, e.g. education journals. Similarly, there are reviews/coverage of books on esoteric subjects like astrophysics  and lesbian socialism  in even the mainstream press. Before arguing for deletion I looked extensively for coverage of this book and could only find the kind of stuff cited. The main reason for the lack of reviews/in depth coverage isn't that the book is on an esoteric subject. It's because it's self-published. Voceditenore (talk) 11:39, 27 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.