Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia Shaw (psychologist)


 * 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. Seems like there is a compelling case that GNG is met, which is enough to keep an article even if NPROF isn't met (and that isn't so clear in this AfD). Now it looks like the present state of the article and its sourcing are questionable (unduly promotional, apparently, and the sources too pundit-ey) so I'll tag for cleanup. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Julia Shaw (psychologist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Someone who has barely left college and who is absolutely not notable as an academic, with her hundred or so citations according to Google Scholar (mostly from co-authored works). Her position of research associate is the most junior position possible, and ranks below an American assistant professor, for example. The article is already tagged for lacking notability on the French Wikipedia, where it is noted that the article was created on several different Wikipedia editions at the same time last autumn (apparently it was deleted on the Dutch Wikipedia since then). This leads me to conclude that this is a case of cross-wiki spam. Tataral (talk) 06:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. I gotta say as the original author and 10 year long Wikipedian I'm bit miffed at the style of this afd and the claims and insinuations coming with it. First of all it is customary to ask the author before an afd or at least inform him about, which didn't happen here. Secondly the insinuation that article was created for promtional reason in several wikipedia and presumably (?) by the same person is simply not true. I have no idea, who created the French and Dutch versions and why. If I had to guess, they were probably created by people simply picking up the English version and translating it, which is not uncommon. In any case I've created the English and the German version and certainly not for promotional reasons and I have no connection to the article's subject whatsoever. The rationality behind the notability and the reason for the article's creation is not really notable as an academic in the sense of a research academic, but as tv/media/press pundit and book author on the false memory complex, which had been the subject of controversial debates in the past. She was prominently featured as a pundit in false memory documentary broadcasted by major tv channels (in Germany iirc by ZDF and later 3sat (Das getäuschte Gedächnis (the fooled memory) and Shaw was also personally featured by 3sat here and appeared also on a |PBS Nova documentary), that was the reason for the article's creation, to provide some background and profile of somebody appearing as prominent (mainstream) media pundit on a (formerly?) controversial issue.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's not required to ask the creator for permission to nominate an article for deletion. As noted above, the manner in which this article was created across several Wikipedia projects at the same time has already been pointed out on other projects. As for notability, the article clearly claims she is a "psychologist" and notable as such. The lead section for example exclusively discusses her research, not any additional activity as a "pundit". The body of the article mentions "guest blogging" with half a sentence, while the rest of the article is solely about her as an academic. Given the way the article is written, WP:ACADEMIC is clearly the applicable notability guideline. Which leaves us with the following facts: She has very few citations in Google Scholar and a very junior position at a university, the kind of position given to recent graduates (such as herself). I also see no evidence of any activity as a "pundit" that would be sufficiently notable here. --Tataral (talk) 09:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Customary" is not "required" and nobody said anything about requesting a permission for an afd, but about informing the author about the afd and maybe ask for clarification rather than stating speculative claims. As far as the notability is concerned it can be based on different rationales and policies and as I said the notability here isn't really based on WP:ACADEMIC.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in the article that demonstrates notability on any other grounds, not related to academic work. The article is almost exclusively about her as a (very junior) academic. --Tataral (talk) 13:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It is true that the her tv/documentary appearances are not explicitly mentioned, but her book and her column are. Moreover this moves over towards a different discussion which is not about the principal nobility as such but how the article could/should be improved. When I originally setup the article my focus was primarily to provide the academic background and education of somebody appearing as a pundit in the media. The media appearances and her book can be described in more detail to make the notability more obvious to readers. Media/Press reporting about her and her research and/or inreviewing/using her as oundit include: Vice, Wired, Deutschlandfunk (public German radio):1, 2 und 3, Daily Mail, Der Spiegel [Germany's leading weekly political magazine), New Yorker, The Times, The Guardian - weekly science podcast, Deutsche Welle, PBS Nova, New York Magazine, CBC News, Toronto Star, Heise Online (biggest German IT/Tech news), WNYC, BBC Radio. The more extensive (German) documentary that featured her as a pundit is linked in my posting further up.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Keep It could use more sources, but I don't see a problem with her notability. - you might have forgotten we don't use the Daily Mail anymore. Doug Weller talk 18:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Afaik can the Daily Mail still be used, but it is just discouraged. Anyhow I just added in the list above to illustrate the media pundit aspect with regard to notability not to be used as a source for any article content, for that any of the other more reputable sources can be used.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Multiple in-depth RS on her work exists, which meets WP:GNG even if it doesn't technically meet WP:NACADEMIC., among others. Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Saw this got more contentious, so I want to comment a bit more on the discussion. One, meeting WP:GNG is sufficient for notability and keeping an article irrespective of whether the article subject meets a subject notability guideline. Secondly, the coverage here is much more in-depth that that of a typical pundit. Most pundits get a few paragraphs as part of a larger piece, not multiple, in-depth pieces on the crux of their research. Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep -- meets WP:GNG in my mind, irrespective of WP:PROF. Sample coverage Wired, etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong delete The standard for inclusion of academics is the notability guidelines on academics. She does not meet any of these, and the claims that anything else meets notability ignore the easy level of being quoted if you are a pundit with out any sign of lasting impact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I very much agree with that. The notability guidelines for academics are there for a reason, and here we have an article that discusses a person exclusively as an academic and portrays her as notable as such. If we can ignore those guidelines that easily, then what's the point of having them in the first place? She is, in American terms, at the instructor level academically, with just a handful of citations. Those other sources seem like a kind of WP:1E situation; she made some press-friendly claims about one popular topic (she certainly didn't invent the concept of false memories) and got them to write about it (she appears to be skilled primarily in self-promotion, judging by what happened with her biographies at least in other language WPs, her ostentatious website and Internet presence in general), but I don't think she merits a biographical article, not even on the basis of WP:GNG. --Tataral (talk) 07:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again, misunderstands or misrepresents the relationship between the General Notability Guideline — the standards of which protect everything at AfD — and the array of supplemental Special Notability Guidelines, which provide additional avenues for material to be kept for categories of subjects which have difficulty meeting the GNG standard for this reason or that. Academics, for example, might not gain coverage in the press while at the same time gaining national or international recognition in their fields. Thus the SNG alternative... Carrite (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further evaluation of subject, when referring to above !vote

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Night  fury  08:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. She definitely doesn't pass NPROF, and the point that pundits are a dime a dozen and get quoted frequently if they're connected to "hot-button" issues is a very valid one as well. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong delete What editor said. + Subject of article is non-notable and fails WP:NACADEMIC, WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:BASIC.       Celestina007 (talk) 20:27, 01 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per above. Clearly lacking notability, fails WP:NACADEMIC et al. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I think the discussion is starting to miss its target a bit. We have now several posts repeatedly claiming that Shaw doesn't pass WP:NACADEMIC/WP:PROF. However that was never in dispute and the argument for notability was never based on that. So let me iterate again, that the argument for notability rests on her being a popular pundit in the mainstream media and a book author, that is in particular WP:GNG, WP:NEXIST and WP:BASIC. I.e. the discussion should focus on those and whether they are passed or not. Imho they are and let me reiterate why. Over the last 2-3 years Shaw has been repeatedly covered by various mainstream media outlets in at least 4 different and in at least 2 languages (US, Canada, UK, Germany). She was one of main experts/pundit used/interviewed in 2 major documentaries on human memory (on PBS-Nova and 3sat). There are plenty of publications about her herself, her book and with her serving as an expert/advisor on memory. I've linked a list of examples publication already further up.

Now there was the argument about her being clever at self marketing. While that might be true (at least it looks that way to me) that isn't really our, that is WP's, concern as long as that happens outside of WP. WP merely assesses the external result/state, that whether somebody has reached sufficient media coverage or passed other thresholds, that generate encyclopedic interest/interest for readers to look them up in a reference work. But how that external state was reached does not really matter, i.e. whether it was by clever self marketing, chance, doing groundbreaking research or committing an infamous crime doesn't really matter. Encyclopedic notability serves the information/knowledge interest of readers, it is not a reward for hard work or good behaviour.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm not sure that this passes the GNG. I'm not !voting yet because I'm not sure. From what I can tell, WP:NACADEMIC is a lower bar than GNG precisely because most notable academics don't receive the requisite "significant coverage" because it's their work and not the person themselves that receives the coverage. The argument that Shaw passes the GNG seems to be based on equating her with her work. When discussing her work, some of the sources definitely go beyond a mere "trivial mention" of Shaw, but is it "significant coverage"? I'm not sure we have that. (When looking at the articles, most references to Shaw could be replaced with Porter without changing anything, and I don't think that level of coverage is "significant".) The Wired article for sure gives Shaw significant coverage, and less clearly so, I think the CBC piece, too. What about the Heise event announcement? Together, is that enough? Are there more? (I think I've checked every link on this page and in the article, but I haven't listened to any audio or watched any video.) -- irn (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The tech news Heise on its own is no significant coverage, that was more to show that she appears or gets referenced in different types of media in different language (from German tech/engineering news like Heise to American cultural magazines like the New Yorker). Other pieces cover her in a similar fashion to the wired or the cbc article are one 3sat tv piece, a BBC Radio piece, Neue Westfälische (German newspaper), Tagesspiegel (German newspaper), Stern (German magazine), Deutschlandfunk Nova (German Radio)--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep – Passes GNG. While most of the sources cited on this page and in the article treat Shaw as a talking head or pundit or whatever and only focus on her work, that's not universal. Multiple reliable sources (at least Wired, CBC, and Der Tagesspiegel, if not more) give "significant coverage" to Shaw herself - addressing Shaw directly as the subject and in detail. Regarding NACADEMIC, I would like to point out that, in its own words, NACADEMIC is an alternative to GNG. An academic need only meet the requirements of GNG or NACADEMIC, so failure to pass NACADEMIC is irrelevant. -- irn (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm persuaded after a short spin around the Google that this is a leading figure in academic research of the phenomenon of false memory, and is recognized as such. See, for example, THIS PIECE in Wired, "False memories and false confessions: the psychology of imagined crimes: Julia Shaw uses science to prove that some memories are false. Now she's tackling criminal-justice failures." Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It has been demonstrated that she is not any "leading figure in academic research " of anything. She is a junior employee at the research associate level (equiv. to US instructor) who has much less than 200 citations combined (from co-authored works anyway), which is the kind of number of citations that many recent PhD graduates would have in her discipline. Having been mentioned in the media in connection with making media-friendly comments about a popular topic in which she isn't an authority of any standing doesn't give her any academic standing, and she did not invent the concept of false memories, nor is she a leading researcher in that field. It could theoretically be the case that is an example of the famous for nothing phenomenon (if she is notable for anything, it's apparently aggressive self-promotion), but the problem is that the article, and your comment here, doesn't say that she is notable for being a media figure or something; the article, like your comment, argues specifically that she is notable for  research/academic merits , which is wholly untrue. --Tataral (talk) 10:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with almost everything in this comment, and so I'd like to respond to explain a little more why my !vote differs from yours even though I see the situation from a very similar perspective. I disagree with the description of her as being famous for nothing, and I think she is notable for her research. However, she wouldn't be notable for it if she hadn't aggressively marketed herself, and that's what creates the conundrum here. Her accomplishments themselves aren't enough for a keep !vote, but because she has marketed them so well, she has received significant coverage and meets the GNG. -- irn (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I respect the fact fact that you reach a different conclusion, but the way I see it this article primarily serves to promote and sustain what is essentially a hoax—namely the idea that Shaw is a "leading figure in academic research" who basically discovered false memories, or something like that, instead of someone who has just completed her education and who doesn't have any real academic merits—rather than any informational, encyclopedic purpose. --Tataral (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm skeptical of the arguments that WP:NACADEMIC isn't applicable here. She's done one research study that got a significant amount of pop science coverage.  Simply having her research study well-covered wouldn't allow GNG to apply.  However, the Wired piece and the Tagesspiegel piece are substantial coverage of her (and not just her work), so it meets GNG. That said, it would be nice if the article relied on those references and not her LinkedIn profile. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 06:34, 7 November 2017 (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.