Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurel Schwulst


 * 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.  JGHowes   talk  22:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Laurel Schwulst

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

BLP that does not meet WP:CREATIVE. Mccapra (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable, as per earlier decline of draft. MurielMary (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - I respectfully disagree. Schwulst fulfills section 1 of WP:CREATIVE as she is widely cited by peers in the field of design education. See: Interactive Design Syllabus citing Schwulst Parsons - Syllabus citing SchwulstSyllabus citing Schwulst VCU Syllabus citing Schwulst CCA syllabus citing Schwulst --Wil540 art (talk) 02:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Those links are to college syllabi in which she is thanked or acknowledged (alongside other people) for providing inspiration or precedents or guidance to fellow academics in the field. This is not the same as being "cited by peers". "Cited by peers" would be her work cited in a piece of academic research e.g. her research used as a basis for another piece of research, or a publication by her referred to in a footnote. Is there evidence of this peer citation? MurielMary (talk) 04:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Acknowledgement in a syllabi is the design education equivalent of being cited by peers. Your understanding privileges academic writings over teaching practices. --Wil540 art (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not my personal understanding, it's the language of the Wikipedia policy/guideline. If you disagree with "cited by peers" as a criteria and want to broaden the criteria to include "acknowledged in a college syllabi" then that is something for you to take up in another forum. As the policy stands, being acknowledged by peers does not seem to meet the criteria of notability for an academic. Also note that the phrase in the policy is "widely cited by peers", so being acknowledged by peers within the same institution as oneself would not seem to meet this criteria either. MurielMary (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Schwulst is a pioneer of interactive design, influential both in her work and writing which epitomizes the 'slow web.' Her statement My website is a shifting house next to a river of knowledge, what could yours be? and article Personal Voice (Art in America, 2017), among other texts, have ignited trends in web design and encouraged others in the field. --Rgm38 (talk 21:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. No doubt her intentions are admirable, but she doesn't have a single cite for her work WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC).
 * Keep per above as she meets WP:CREATIVE. Batmanthe8th (talk) 04:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lots of citations, but I don't see any that any of them are independent with significant coverage. - MrOllie (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. A citation is a mention in a published academic work.  A syllabus certainly does not qualify, and I'm not seeing evidence of citations otherwise.  So I'm not seeing WP:NPROF.  WP:NCREATIVE looks more plausible, but I'm not seeing good evidence of any of the criteria: C1 is similar to GNG, I see no assertion of C2, I'm not seeing reviews of work for C3, and I'm not seeing significant and/or notable exhibitions for C4.  I'm watching the discussion, and will change my !vote if better evidence of notability is uncovered. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   16:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Schwulst's article My website is a shifting house next to a river of knowledge, what could yours be? is standard text taught in most academic Graphic Design programs around the world. See syllabi cited elsewhere here. News to Me 123 (talk) 02:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC) — News to Me 123 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep - Schwulst's meets WP:Creative. Per item 1, Schwulst is widely regarded as a leader in the field. See Schwulst's citation in a design lecture by industry professional Andy Pressman at Design Portland. What do we Lose when it's easy to Use? Lcoombs (talk) 02:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC) — Lcoombs (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. It appears to me that she meets WP:CREATIVE. Besides being frequently mentioned, she is often interviewed in the context of web design, and is sometimes mentioned for her work or how she became a web designer. There seems to be content mentioning her in other languages, so WP:NEXIST cannot be neglected either. On top of WP:CREATIVE, or probably as a consequence of it, overall it seems that she is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" per WP:BIO. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 19:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. I haven't been by WP in quite a while and I guess I'm surprised by how much the level of evidence / burden of proof has dropped here for keeping BIOs. This article is overloaded with REFs far beyond the importance of its subject, some are repeated, and almost all are webcruft. Second, the article was created and has been nurtured by a SPA and, taken with the level of minutiae in the article, it appears to be either a vanity or a fanpage. Third, there's no convincing statement of notability in the lede...unless vague claims of being notable for "innovative teaching methods" and such and sourced by webpages is now acceptable. 2600:1700:8650:2C60:D822:97B:9540:37E (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2020 (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.