Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krystal Tsosie


 * 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 no consensus. Opinions are divided: Deleters argue that she fails our academic notability standards, while keepers consider her notable because of the general media coverage, not necessarily because of her academic achievements. Both are valid arguments, and it's not up to me to decide which is better.  Sandstein  18:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Krystal Tsosie

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I declined CSD A7 because I think this makes a credible claim of significance, but a few mentions in MSM don't reach GNG or ACADEMIC for a grad student in my book. GoldenRing (talk) 10:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - probably WP:TOOSOON. I have found a few additional independent sources  in addition to what's in the article now, but all seem to be light on biographical details, and most are just about Tsosie's views on the Elizabeth Warren DNA results. I've found nothing that contributes to WP:NACADEMIC or WP:SIGCOV. I'd say delete for now, but be somewhat generous with WP:REFUND if someone wants to clean it up and add new sources that contribute to NACADEMIC. -- Netoholic @  15:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)   (note to closer, I'd also delete  which has a copy of this in its page history, created by the same novice editor)
 * Delete “woman is mad about cultural misappropriation” isn’t notability. Perhaps after the election there will be more to write about. Trillfendi (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete A grad student does not pass NPROF. Reywas92Talk 18:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. She certainly doesn't pass WP:PROF, insufficient evidence of passing GNG. --Tataral (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not pass NPROF or GNG. All of the sources are passing mentions save for the profile, which is a self-submitted website and not a reliable source or an indicator of notability. Anyone can register. Natureium (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep It is extraordinarily rare for a person at her career stage to pass WP:PROF, but the sheer number of reliable sources that quote her as an expert about a high-profile genetics claim, from the New York Times and the Boston Globe on, make this one of those rare times. People care about the topic for which she is presented as an authority, and we serve the public better by helping readers find out about her. In addition to the RS already in the article , she's also gotten substantial write-ups in Nature and in Science News , as well as The Atlantic back in 2015  (see also ). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Oh yes, XOR is right. There is coverage sufficient for GNG and I'll happily go along with the presumption of notability. Thincat (talk) 09:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree that she should be kept for C7 and given the current coverage of her and position of Elizabeth Warren, it would be expected that she receive more coverage. StudiesWorld (talk) 09:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per reasons given by XOR. Those are prominent and significant citations. --mikeu talk 14:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete we have never interpreted the GNG to include quotes in newspapers. Those are inherently non-independent. C7 has also not usually been read this way unless the statements were substantial, which these are not. These are novel interpretations of existing guidelines that appear an attempt to make the guidelines reach an outcome rather than have the outcome match the guidelines, and the closer should weight them as such, remembering that policy has usually ignored quotes in the media as grounds for notability going back years. There is nothing here at all that supports notability, and by these standards virtually anyone who has ever entered a graduate program would be considered notable. PROF is designed as a double edged sword: it includes those who should be included while keeping out those who are good at promoting themselves but who haven’t achieved much in academia itself. This article is the perfect example of a biography that PROF is supposed to keep out, and I find the twisting of C7 to be very disturbing here as it would effectively open the floodgates for virtually every North American academic to have an article, which also creates bias issues as academics in other regions could not as easily be included. This is a clear delete on the merits of policy as it stands and as a precedent issue. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I take your comment seriously, but I ultimately cannot agree with your position. These are novel interpretations of existing guidelines that appear an attempt to make the guidelines reach an outcome rather than have the outcome match the guidelines &mdash; on the contrary. My initial impression was much more in line with the delete !votes above, but then I did the ordinary level of research that I've applied to every passingly-interesting AfD I've participated in for the past two years, and as a result, I changed my opinion. I've recommended deletion in plenty of academic biography AfDs, and I would have done so here if I had found as little as I originally expected. I said that this case was extraordinarily rare, and I meant that. If "look at all this other stuff that exists" is an uncompelling argument and one to be avoided, then I have to admit that "look at all this other stuff that might conceivably exist in the future" moves me even less. Finding the "floodgate" argument an unconvincing scenario, I fail to see how keeping an article about a Navajo-American woman scientist would be a bad precedent for the cause of fighting systemic bias. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * She's a grad student who is good at branding herself. That is not the same thing as having an actual impact. The fact that we are making huge exceptions for early career individuals also creates another form of bias: we have many academics who are significantly more accomplished in their fields than Tsosie who do not come close to meeting PROF. The impact of the new interpretation of C7 that has appeared this week is clear: young people who have accomplished relatively little will be privileged with articles over older academics who have achieved more, don't pass any of the other criteria, and don't like talking to the press and don't understand new media (not exactly uncommon in academia, especially among older academics.)As a matter of course, for a grad student to be considered notable there should be exceptional achievement, and that is not at all the case here. Perhaps I'm biased because I have more friends than I can count who have done more than Tsosie has in their fields, but carving out a huge exception to the merit-based notability criteria that is NPROF is nothing but a negative. Academic self-promotion is a big thing, and what we're now seeing is a reinterpretation of guidelines to reward those who engage in it. I simply refuse to believe that a grad student can meet NPROF without academic achievement that would be expected of a tenured faculty member. That hasn't been achieved here, and so deletion is unfortunately the correct outcome. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but to me, it's not a new interpretation of C7 that has appeared this week; it's the same standard I've been applying all along to academic biographies. Sometimes people pass that, by my reckoning, and sometimes they fail; sometimes other !voters agree with me and sometimes they don't. I tend to lean to "delete" when the only indicators of significance are counts of Twitter followers or YouTube subscribers. Those numbers indicate self-promotion, pure and simple, and they don't mean much. But here we have a person who is treated as a subject-matter expert by journalists like Carl Zimmer writing in places like The New York Times. That's different. For comparison, if a writer pounded the asphalt and wore out their shoe leather doing signings and talks and interviews, as a result of which they sold a lot of books and got high-profile reviews, we'd say they passed WP:AUTHOR, even though the process of getting there involved "self-promotion". I don't think I'm making an exception for an early-career individual, either. If Tsosie were a tenured faculty member without an exceptional citation profile, a named chair, a major award, etc., and she got the same press for the same reasons, I would !vote to keep with the same rationale (just without the comment that it's an unusual call for someone at her career stage). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's fair, and I would have !voted delete for a tenured faculty member who didn't meet any of the other criteria. I know you're working in good faith, and my comment was more directed at the fact that because of the recent publicity both at ANI and in the press, we're getting people who are less familiar with PROF viewing these and making claims as to what is and isn't met. I'm sorry if my comment was seen as playing down your views, which isn't my intent. I haven't been active at AfD recently, but I'm fairly familiar with PROF and I'd never seen it interpreted this way in regards to a grad student, and rarely for an assistant professor. I am concerned that we do appear as a community to be stretching guidelines to fit outcomes (not you, but a lot of the comments in the recent AfDs) and think that it would be better just to modify the guidelines if people think there is an issue rather than try to fit people who don't meet them into them, which I think is what as a whole is happening here. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment to expand on my brief "per XOR" !vote above... The thread of reasoning given by XOR was very much in line with my own thinking on this when I wrote that. Specifically, per WP:BIO, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". I wholeheartedly support a review of bio gng and prof, but I feel that the policy line I've cited clearly covers this as a keep and that we're not really covering new ground. It is "significant" and "unusual" for such a prominent journalist at a major newspaper of record to cite anyone so early in their career as a topic expert and we should give that appropriate weight. I understand your concern about canvassing and editors who are unfamiliar with policy. Some of us who have a long history of contributions are now getting caught in the cross-fire for simply expressing interpretations of policy that we've long supported. --mikeu talk 14:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete The argument forwarded by is one of the best ones, I've ever read across any AfD and hits the nail on the head.  &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 21:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as per XOR's arguments. Mlvandijk 19:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per TonyBallioni. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mu301's 14:29 comment. <span style="font-family:'Lucida Sans Unicode','Arial'; color:#3A5A9C;">—&#8288; 烏&#8288;Γ (kaw) │ 23:53, 09 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.