Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Ann Mansigh


 * 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.  Sandstein  14:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Mary Ann Mansigh

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article declined at AFC and creator of the page has continued to move war and edit war. In any case the subject of the fails to satisfy WP:BIO as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A before search doesn’t turn up anything substantial. AFD'ing this page is just the last resort Celestina007 (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm confident that people will see reason. This stuff is verified. Ema--or (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment/question Oooh what's wrong with the comment bots? are they workin'?Ema--or (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC) Fixed, ha. Too slow, too slow/.


 * Comment First time for everything!! afD after how many years..... :) Ha Ema--or (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Much. Ado. about nil. Smh/ Ema--or (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * -- RE - Kbabej 00:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC) Good comments, though I don't agree. Made in good faith and some interesting observations. Ema--or (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Now that I think, it isn't my first brush with wiki deletionists. Bessel, who's that guy, yeah. Simon problems. deustche wiki even beat us to that one. Hmm wonder why (diplo speak for why the hell). Ema--or (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC) Ps This is meant to be serious debate, but irony and satire that lang. is spoken here, (a)plenty. 00:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Ema--or (talk)


 * Request Hi, Celestina, please alert physics about this. This debate's net should be cast as wiiiide as possible. Ema--or (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Hmmm. It's like you really want me to try knock this outta tha park, and I'm not even a baseball/cricket person. Let's go. Ema--or (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC) I hope it doesn’t seem that I’m trying to monopolise the discussion. Well, it’s my right to have as much say as I want or need to. If it means being convincing. You can call it passion, if you like. Ema--or (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * “Comment” I'm invoking/evoking(?) the spirit of all those female computing pioneers. Let’s do it for them. Ema--or (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC) Edit - I’m going to call some names, to show the exalted company this woman should be in. She cocreated molecular dynamics for goodness sakes. Ema--or (talk) 03:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC) Who are these people whose names I’m calling on? 03:22 Utc, 11 February 2021. These folks; in the names of . (Edit - Didn't finish this. See here for explanation.. Ema--or (talk) 06:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC))
 * Comment This subject has been a long time in the works, having waited years for its place in the sun (even enduring deletion), but its time has come. 02:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC) Ps I remember a few years ago there was a story about an artist by a prolific wiki creator that was nearly deleted. This made the news everywhere as sign of wiki’s macho bias. Do you really want to be those folks. Do you want to be spoken about in the same way? I don’t have an email with this account. Imagine people possibly having to contact me through the site. Do you want that? Do you ?Ema--or (talk) 03:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC). Boom! Found it. See also this, and this here. Ema--or (talk) 03:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment An interesting story. Back in 2013, I attended a chemistry talk between Daan Frenkel and a colleague. Both being Dutch (I love Dutchies! Is that offensive? Love the country, and am learning the lingo. Let me know...     we're living in a pc world, and not after just the merger with currys) and chemists, the interview took a turn when Frenkel was asked who his history teacher was. xx  But I digress.... It was through Frenkel and this talk that I found out about Ms Mansigh, and it struck me I’d discovered another so called computer girl/code girl. It turns out that this guy seems to be a big fan, and in some of his other work he, Frenkel, has mentioned her. I hope this adds some colour. Ema--or (talk) 04:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)  Is the story true or bs - you decide. xx It was Fortuyn!
 * Comment — Please do not BLUDGEON the AFD process & furthermore, you can’t hold Wikipedia to ransom via threats, thank you. Celestina007 (talk) 04:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for pointing this out, and making me aware - wasn't. I consider myself yellow-carded! But, I can only but try to be passionate and persuasive, no crime here. Everyone still has their space, and I don't want take away anyone's voice, if anything lightly engage them, but maybe that won't change hearts or minds. I'm also not threatening anyone... at least hope not. And if I still get in trouble, the hope's it's Lewis's good trouble! Woah, is this how people get banned.... See ya. Ema--or (talk) 04:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Given the above, I decided to pursue a different tack. For those of you still interested in my self-important bloviations, flatulencies and verbal diarrheas, please see the subject's talk page for a blow-by-blow commentary at a ringside seat to this palaver. Alright, wiederseh'n/tot siensEma--or (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)! After having had a (possibly somewhat short) cool-off in this place - let calm heads reign etc, I think some important stuff has to be said before getting things too far along. Rather than approach people individually I have decided (spellchk deiced? hmm) to do it in the open (as if anything on wp is really secret, huhuh), rather be accused of sth else again. While I am focused on this discussion and this article (as this's the time to, not after), I will defend myself in an appropriate forum when all this is over. Expect no less... Ema--or (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

- I’ve put all possibly interested parties on notice, including additionally wp project biog. Going on the record to say that my requests for further clarification have not yet been acknowledged. Maybe I/ my questions were ignored or refused an answer. Let it be known, hear ye, hear ye, oyiez (oyez/oye?). And now we wait... Ema--or (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Please STOP your disruptive behavior. Suggestion: channel your energy into improving the article, that action would be more helpful to the purpose of the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Eyyy (scream & recoil)! Oh deary. What did I now do? Please feel free to answer me anyhow, and anywhere. Ema--or (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Re "Reply, Ema--or 22:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)" If your notices are anything other than squeeky clean 100% neutral, you will have your edit privleges revoked for repeated disruption. Consider this a formal administrative warning, User:Ema--or. DMacks (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Ooohh brr thin ice here. one wrong step a plunge and sploosh!... cold [wet] surprise (at very least, if not more worries for such scenario). (negotiation) What about squeeky[sic] clean 98.8999x% neutral where for 3<x<7, we move to 99.999912345..% maybe we ask Cantor. While some may (now say, who would that be? - no names please, seriously,) want me banned (see my joke, is this how people get banned, not really being a joke anymore hahaha), fortunately, thankfully, I have been given the most gracious guidance. I say and I quote- To maintain neutrality, you must notify every project that follows the article and none that don't. Seems fair for the both of the above, whaddya/whatcha say? Toodle-doo! Ema--or (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC) ps You know that person who flips out and gets banned..... well that's not me!..  One thing, yet. The persistent e/inquisitor (e/inquirer?, I'm  not a gossip magazine or an investigative torturer, am I? Or am I (not)?) wants to push this ever even more. I must ask the ff - please/pray do tell if verifiable facts are allowed in such announcements (eg professional info/data, institutional affiliation). Tar-ra-ra. xx (blown from a &safe& social distance) Ema--or (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC) Seems I’ve been ignored. Ema--or (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC) Still waiting.... would be nice. More than 24 hrs. Ema--or (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC) Too late. Ema--or (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Re -DreamLinker 01:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC) Reply When I saw this yesterday, during my self-imposed cooldown period, though (in which I stayed away from here, however briefly) I thought - now here's an idea - I was willing to agree as a compromise to move it back to draftspace, even though it will've had (a) reduced stay, just for goodwill - even as I suspect it won't save me from reprimand, or possibly discipline. But, it is now too far progressed for there. As a further gesture of good faith, and to kill two birds with one stone (weapon strike? killing birds pc?) why don't we now focus on Wainwright, he's the last of the four without an article (however you want article request/requested articles, draft etc). Alright I'm off. Enjoy your saturday afternoon/evening. Tootlie-too... Ema--or (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Sources do not currently indicate notability- if there are more / better sources out there- please add them. I do think she could be mentioned in another article for her contributions. Nightenbelle (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. I couldn't find much in the way of RS, and I researched this thoroughly, thinking I might be able to rescue it. The Independent states she is "a woman pioneer in the field of computer programming, breaking through gender barriers and supporting the physics research done at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) over a forty year career" here; and NanoTRANS called her a "pioneer of Molecular Dynamics Simulations" here. The Independent might work, but even calls itself "local coverage", and I've never heard of NanoTRANS before so have no idea on its sourcing. The entry in NanoTRANS doesn't even have a byline. There's also an article that appears on a number of sites called "Almost famous a woman behind the codes" (available here) that calls her "a truly outstanding representative of the first generation of coders", but there's no byline and I don't know where it originated. The specific wording shows up on a number of sites, so they're just copying each other. Do three short sources (two without bylines or attribution) GNG make? I'm leaning toward delete. Feel free to ping me if someone's able to find something better or make a swaying Keep !vote. --Kbabej (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: Nominator claims to have done a WP:BEFORE search, but in addition to the above sources, the first page of Google Books turns up coverage in a Springer publication: (https://www.google.com/books/edition/Computer_Meets_Theoretical_Physics/VCbsDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22mary+ann+mansigh%22&pg=PA45&printsec=frontcover). Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete – I do not see how the sources (including the one mentioned by Gnomingstuff) constitutes significant coverage. Kbabej's analysis is spot on. It is unfortunate that the article was not allowed to remain a draft, but now it has to meet the applicable notability criteria, and neither WP:GNG nor WP:PROF is met. She seems to have been a thoroughly competent programmer, but that is not grounds for notability. --bonadea contributions talk 16:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Following on from my posts above in the spirit of compromise (as this's when I can afford it), I've decided - barring any objections - to de-clog/de-clutter/un-clog/un-clutter(??? yeh, yeh, whatever) the discussion, and move some of my messages to this chat site's talk page. over n out... Ema--or (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of science deletion discussions. Ema--or (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep if EPFL considers her a pioneer, and has conferences held in her honor, she's notable. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 *  Draftify  Keep per WP:HEY due to the research and work by . - The article has some potential, and there is indication that she might be notable, but it was moved irregularly into live article space much too soon. The disruptive editing during the creation process, and in this AfD is problematic. I suggest sending it back to draft space to incubate, and allow other editors who are interested in women in science to help develop it. Netherzone (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. The very-non-neutrally-worded project notification by Ema--or at Special:Diff/1006287654 looks like a serious WP:CANVASS violation to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Agreed. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Strongly agreed. DMacks (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree, multiple WikiProjects were canvassed. Netherzone (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The AFD was already put in those Wikiprojects' deletion sorting lists so it probably didn't make any difference.  D r e a m Focus  18:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Reply Well, well, well, what would you know. In that case then ... Be advised, be advised - I intend to add Wps History of science and Computing as well. Ema--or (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC) ed Still awaiting further clarification, so haven't sent the alerts. Please hold hold off declaring consensus until after they have been notified. I'll inform the discussion when the posts've been made.  Ema--or (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC) Done. Ema--or (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Draftify I'm inclined to believe that the person is notable, but given the problematic nature of the editing, etc. I agree with Netherzone that it probably needs a bit of time to incubate. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep due to recent improvements to the article. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per Headbomb. She might be "almost famous", but fame≠notability. If she was one of the two to three people known for inventing the whole field of molecular dynamics, that's a pretty big deal. DMacks (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep She was significant in her field. https://www.independentnews.com/community/aauw-presents-tales-of-a-computer-pioneer/article_febbadb4-a6c2-11e6-b9f6-f7ce486823ea.html She was thanked at https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/6248020 "I am particularly  grateful  to Mary Ann Mansigh  for programming  the many and varied molecular-dynamics  problems  for the computer." Her peers respect her contributions to a new field of science.   D r e a m Focus  18:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the comment above about the book found by Gnomingstuff. It contains over a page of coverage which is perfectly enough for an encyclopedia article. My worry is that I can't find any other equivalent source. And, of course, the canvassing that has happened can only serve to make it more difficult to evaluate this subject properly. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Draftify per Netherzone above, but also because this article is a draft that was declined at AFC. The normal procedure for a declined draft is to remain a draft and eventually be re-submitted to AFC once it's deemed ready. The fact that the draft's creator decided to ignore the AFC procedure and move it to articlespace prematurely doesn't change any of that, so it should go back to draftspace where it belongs. Lennart97 (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It took me 10 minutes to find that previously-declined form due to so much page-move/hist-merge and multiple creations. I assume it's User:Ema--or/Mary_Ann_Mansigh? That's not a valid article. The nominated page instead makes multiple specific claims of notability, some with cites, and here in AFD AFC more have been identified. If it makes someone feel better to move this to AFD, re-add the tags, then accept it (if that's what this AFD concludes), then that's fine I guess. But neither Netherzone nor Lennart97 seem to have identified any specific reason to reject it in its current form beyond process-circumvention. I agree that the creator should be admonished for so much disruption of process, but fact is here we are, and AFD itself seems to have led to improvement of the article. DMacks (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed TLA. DMacks (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep (changed from Draftify, above). Dmacks is correct: this current, vastly improved version is ready for article space, and how it got there doesn't matter. I let my annoyance with the creator's disruptive behaviour cloud my judgement on this one. Thanks for pointing this out, . Lennart97 (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep (as article has been sufficiently improved).--DreamLinker (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC) Draftify for now and let this article be improved, without the AfD deadline. Personally, I believe this is a notable person (although I don't really have enough sources to back it up right now). Considering that computer programming was a niche field in the 1950s/60s, it is highly probably that a programmer from that era is notable. As Mary Ann Mansigh was a programmer instead of an academic researcher, the lack of papers authored is understandable. In the "acknowledgment" section of some papers dating back to the 60s and 70s, I did find her name mentioned. There are also brief mentions in a few recent papers ,,. My library subscription has expired so I am not able to search older news/databases. It is unfortunate though, that the article was moved to mainspace sidestepping AFC and I would recommend the author to trust the process and collaborate. Many of us are willing to help and improve articles, but as we are volunteers, we might not be able to immediately improve it. AFC allows us to collaborate without a strict deadline.--DreamLinker (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is clear that she is a borderline case so I don't think drafting this will change this.  The crux is that Mary has become notable due to the fact that she was one of the very few female computer scientists working at that time (several of the academic papers quoted in the article name check her in this regard, such as ".. more “he” than “she” in the 50’s and 60’s — Arianna Rosenbluth and Mary-Ann Mansigh are notable exceptions.." (we have a Arianna W. Rosenbluth article).  This status is sufficient for several notable academic institutions (quoted in the article and ELs), to name lecture series after her.  I think this meets WP:PRESERVE and WP:NOTPAPER.  Preserving such fragments of a female pioneer are useful encyclopedic activities. Britishfinance (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This interview for the EPFL is WP:SIGCOV (and contains useful biographical details), Mary Ann Mansigh Karlsen, codeuse de la première heure. Britishfinance (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, very poignant ref [12] (last ref) in this tidied up an article of an academic noting that her name should have appeared as an author on the published academic papers written as a result of her molecular dynamics computer code - again, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:NOTPAPER, these were different times for women. Britishfinance (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep following WP:HEY by . The Springer volume is definitely significant coverage, and I think the other sources there are now enough to support.  I also agree that there's a possible WP:NPROF C1 case, per her (under-acknowledged) contribution to impactful scientific work. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm convinced by the arguments above and the sources now cited in the article. Particularly convincing is that the modern equivalent would undoubtably be credited as a co-author of many papers. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I must say a word about draftification. There is nothing "irregular" about an article creator moving an article to mainspace. Creating an article in mainspace is the regular Wikipedia process, and going through AfC is completely optional for anyone with the technical capability of bypassing AfC. If anyone chooses not to use AfC then an article should stand or fall by an AfD discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am the editor who used the word "irregular". That comment was based on my reading of the article history. Netherzone (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment re: my mention of the Springer book -- My mentioning it is more of a quality-of-coverage argument, as opposed to quantity; for instance, the beginning of the section calls her "perhaps the greatest collaborator of Alder and Wainwright," which seems like a clear statement of significance by the author. But quantity does enter into it as well; several pages dedicated to one person, including biographical details, in a book more broadly about the history of molecular physics is a non-trivial amount of space. (I didn't come here from any kind of canvassing operation.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Headbomb (and Gnomingstuff above, and other comments..). Getting a lecture series in your honor seems enough to be considered notable. It might be bad form for me to say this, but it seems WP has plenty of bios of less notable programmers, "famous" for writing blogs and posting youtube videos, rather than actually achieving anything. Let's honor historic importance; the importance of developing an entire field seems indisputable. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 05:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per WP:HEY and reasons above. Article is good enough to pass WP:BIO. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 15 February 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.