Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kerrie Burn


 * 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. ✗ plicit  14:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Kerrie Burn

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails both WP:PROF and WP:GNG. The articles about Wikipedia editing do not give the necessary in-depth coverage. StAnselm (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:GNG. --Jeff Quinn (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Burn is not an academic, so is not expected to meet the notability framework for academics. She is a librarian working in an academic space and getting increasing notice for her work on the Australian Women in Religion project, in particular. I have been busy and not had time to include some extra information to the page, however I anticipate that I will be able to do this in the next week. DrMushEa (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "getting increasing notice" is only relevant if the references pass WP:RS. And I cannot find any (any).Cabrils (talk) 05:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I could not find a single reference (let alone reliable source) to the subject via a ProQuest database search of Australian and New Zealand newspapers (deeper and broader than google). I could not find a single reliable source via google. None of the page's current sources satisfy WP:RS. I consider myself an inclusion-ist but there is literally nothing to work with here. Fails GNG. Cabrils (talk) 05:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete As already said, doesn't meet WP:NPROF, and whilst is head of a few groups, they don't seem to be sufficiently notable on their own. Lack of significant and independant coverage to pass WP:GNG, but is perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I also want to say that it's a really bad look when a workgroup is formed to write Wikipedia articles and the participants write articles about each other. StAnselm (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's also a bad look StAnslem when someone publishes derisive commentary about the project on a facebook page, and then immediately tries to discredit the project by targetting a page for deletion. Cabrils, Eternity News, Australia is getting flagged as not reliable on a number of our pages. But since we are writing about Australian Women in Religion, this is likely to be a key source that proves notability within a specific population of Australia (that being Christian's). I noticed the arguement on sources page about CBN, and think that Eternity News should be treated in the same way. That is, it should not be taken as an authority on things unrelated to Christianity, but as a leading publication focussing on Christian's in Australia it demonstrates relevance.I have added sources this morning that demonstrate notability across a range of points: first non-US person on the Atla board, ARC recognition, more sources reporting on the AWR project and recognition by ALIA - the professional body for librarians. DrMushEa (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * DrMushEa it's never best practice to use deprecated sources and whilst Eternity News does not appear on | this list, those discussions you refer to carry some weight. Honestly, I feel like you are pursuing | your agenda to add pages that feature Australian women related to "theology and gender and sexuality, feminism, worship and community", and while that may be legitimate (arguably noble?), it is only so when those pages meet GNG. If the best sources of a page's citations are from Eternity News, in my view it really is self-evident that the page fails the relevant policies. The subject of a page needs to be notable and the current citations do not meet that bar in my view, given my research on the subject (as I described above via both Google and the substantial ProQuest database). And as I said, my personal approach is to include pages if at all possible, so I tried to find sources so that the page would satisfy GNG, but I could not. You might consider substantially editing the page so that it only includes content from the most reliable sources and see what the community feels about that (an approach I often employ to help save pages, for instance | here. Cabrils (talk) 01:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ThanksCarblis, I appreciate the feedback. And you're right, I am pursuing an agenda to challenge gender bias on Wikipedia which has been identified as a weakness of the site, and becuase I am interested in theology and religion those are the women that I am choosing to focus on. I am trying to make sure that any woman I choose meets the notablity guidlelines. I am aware that Christian news sources are niche publications, will have smaller readership and therefore are less likely to be picked up by pages like Google, or ProQuest. ProQuest seems to have an American bias that does not necessarily account for searches regarding Australian women who like Burn, have made significant contributions that may not be recognised outside their field. In terms of librarianship, this is another niche field that people working outside might not recognise what counts as notability for that occupation. This means that people working - like Burn - at the intersection of librarianship and theology, while contributing something unique to both fields doesn't fit well within the general notability requirements becuase it is a doubly marginal space. This is part of the systemic issue that leads to gender bias on wikipedia. (Librarian professional certification is not even included on the wiki page). So Burn has notability due to: a) her distinguished status within librarianship including her professional certification and her pioneering inclusion on the Atla Board, b) her work on the James Goold project as noted by the ARC, and c) on the Australian women in Religion project, principally in Christian news media. While none of these elements would be enough on their own, together they indicate that she is undertaking notable work in the niche field of theological librarianship.DrMushEa (talk) 02:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * DrMushEa Thank you for your considered and prompt reply. That's interesting that "gender bias on Wikipedia...has been identified as a weakness of the site"-- I find it curious that GNG could have a gender bias, and I wonder from where that "identified" "weakness" has come? Your argument is eloquent but I personally don't see how it reconciles with the reality of GNG. Having (a) "distinguished status", (b) being noted by the ARC, and (c) being in Christian news media, is still irrelevant unless the subject is notable ie meets the GNG. Wanting someone to exist on Wikipedia in order to achieve some alternative goal (alternative from notability as defined) (and as I said, even apparently noble goals), including for example "because it is true" (a reason I've seen made elsewhere by others) still may not meet GNG. If there are insufficient reliable sources, for whatever reason, be that gender-based or whatever, then that is an issue to take up with publishers. I do feel your frustration so again suggest you see if you could start the page afresh, limiting the content to what can be sourced from the best independent reliable sources you can find, and see what the consensus is. I do believe it will give the page the best chance of surviving this deletion challenge. All the best with it. Cabrils (talk) 06:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Cabrils Just FYI from this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_bias_on_Wikipedia "In October 2018, when Donna Strickland won a Nobel Prize in Physics, numerous write-ups mentioned that she did not previously have a Wikipedia page. A draft had been submitted, but was rejected for not demonstrating "significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject".[56][57][58]In July 2006, Stacy Schiff wrote a New Yorker essay about Wikipedia entitled "Know It All".[59] The Wikipedia article about her was created the very same day. According to Timothy Noah, she was apparently not notable by Wikipedia standards, despite the Guggenheim fellowship and Pulitzer prize many years previous.[60] Her essay and the article about her are now featured in the Wikiproject to counter systemic bias.[61]" I will have time later this week to rejig Burn's page. DrMushEa (talk) 06:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * DrMushEa Thanks for sharing that, I had no idea. Good luck with the rewrite, I'm sure it will be a good improvement. Cabrils (talk) 06:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete The sources from where the data is taken are not reliable and it does not follows all the norms also.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 04:25, 9 June 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.