Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janet L. Mitchell


 * 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. (non-admin closure) -- Dane 2007  talk 01:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Janet L. Mitchell

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

trivial awards, and no other evidence of notability.  DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Rather marginal, but the article doesn't make the best case for notability, not covering, from the single NLM ref: "Dr. Mitchell has written more than fifty articles and book chapters related to her areas of specialization. She has received two major grant awards from the Centers for Disease Control, one for a perinatal HIV and Aids education and reduction demonstration project from 1988 to 1992 and the other to study pregnancy and pregnancy outcomes of African-American women in the United States from 1993 to 1997. In 1993 she chaired the consensus panel to develop the Pregnant, Substance-abusing Women, Treatment Improvement Protocol for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration under the United States Department of Health and Human Services." Have other sources been looked for? Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notability is clearly established, even though there IS a need for more sources and improvement of the article.  By the way, this is one of 's articles, and I know she was creating at a rather fast pace.    Montanabw (talk)  19:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Very clear BEFORE wasn't done. Notability is established by the National Institute of Health bio, but in addition, we have NY Times article about African-American women's mortality, Mount Holyoke College Newsletter indicating she was honored by the National Library of Medicine, Journal of Equity in Health states Mitchell ran the “largest prenatal program for pregnant drug addicted women in NYC” and successfully lobbied the NIH to include black women in drug trials for AIDS, Congressional hearings show she was called as an expert witness on children and HIV hearings held before the U.S. Congress, not overly important, but her marriage was included in the NY Times too. Unfortunately, she developed early on-set dementia ending her noted career. SusunW (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * COMMENT: More sources about her work on HIV, on mandatory testing and before Congress start on page 39 SusunW (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete. GS with h-index less than 10 not quite enough for WP:Prof. Not enough in-depth sources for WP:GNG. Note that there has been canvassing for this AfD . Maybe WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC).
 * Comment that is not canvassing: it is notifying an interested WikiProject. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep she clearly meets the Prong one of notability for academics requirement. It would be nice if some of the sources identified above were incorparated into the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * COMMENT, I had obligations yesterday and listed the sources in hopes that someone would add to the article. Finding that no one had, I incorporated the sources today. SusunW (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – per Montanabw and SusunW. Improvement is possible through sources discovered. MWright96 (talk) 07:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I continue to consider none of the significant honors, including the NIH listing. That listing is intended for the very important purpose of promoting and encouraging women in medicine, but it does not establish notability; promotionalism is promotionalism , however worthy the cause.  There is no evidence that "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.". This is judged by citation , not by publicity.  h factor without considering the field,   but in this case a value of 10 is much too low for the subject field.
 * discussions of reverse bias are difficult here-- or anywhere. this afd is to some extent a probe, to see what are current standards are. I  advocate flexibility in interpreting the standards for underrepresented groups, I don't support doing away with them altogether.   The accomplishments are not in my opinion sufficient--they look like stretching every reason--giving testimony before a congressional hearing does not establish notability--in fact, it's our normal practice to eliminate such  material from articles as altogether too minor.  A marriage announcement in the NYT once used to indicate a certain social position, but not the sort of notability that an obit there does.    DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * COMMENT Regardless of what you consider or what your actions are, they are not as you summarize above within policy or guideline, DGG.
 * 1) WP:ACADEMIC "is explicitly listed as an alternative to GNG". Not required under any circumstance, nor does it require that she have received rewards of any kind.
 * 2) Nowhere in either of those guidelines is there even a mention of using an h-index to judge notability. In fact, the article linked above by Xxanthippe states "Little systematic investigation has been made on how academic recognition correlates with h-index over different institutions, nations and fields of study." I also see no discussion in the article we have on the index to indicate what its limitations are to scientists from the pre-internet age, as most of Mitchell's work was, (nor as a side note, how the index accounts for people who may have had name changes). Regardless, the Notability standard for academics, which ironically you are implying is the applicable standard in this case, specifically cautions NOT to use it Measures of citability such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. They should be approached with caution.
 * 3) We do not typically remove information, regardless of whether it is trivial, if it is non contentious as for a BLP, or if it is documented by a RS. In fact, we are actually encouraged to string sources together to add weight and meet significant coverage requirements. While your assessment of the testimony before Congress is that it is trivial, in this case, the testimony was in regard to a public health crisis and a need to quickly establish public health policy for a disease that at the time was little understood and had reached epidemic proportions. That she was singled out with a handful of others from all the physicians in the U.S. clearly says she had something to add to the development of policy. Thus not trivial. The information is not contentious, it is independent from her, and summaries from the Congressional meetings surely meet the threshold of RS.
 * 4) Family data is also trivial (as I noted above unimportant for establishing notability), but is typically included in biographical sketches, though omitted from resumés, as long as it is not contentious, independent from her and from a RS. That bar has been met by the NY Times. SusunW (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. I disagree with DGG's analysis of this person's notability. She obviously gained fame more generally than that allowed by "rules" based on strictly academic criteria.--Ipigott (talk) 10:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Excellent work done sourcing notability by, leads to a WP:HEY and a good critical look at use of h index. Passes GNG.  Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as creator - amazing work by SusunW; I started med school this week and my time is severely limited, if I don't get a chance to improve the article with her sources I hope someone has the chance to. :) Keilana (talk) 02:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 7 August 2016 (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.