Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Lou Serafine


 * 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. It is unusual to continue an AfD after the nominator withdraws, but as at that point an admin decided not to close it and others have since presented arguments for deletion we should consider all the views. Doubts centre on the lack of references about Ms Serafine rather than by her: the five inline references are: our article on Rutgers where she was a student, which does not mention her; three references to do with her political candidacy, of which one is her own manifesto and one merely mentions her in a list of candidates; and the citations for her book. My assessment of the consensus is that though she has achievements as lawyer, as author, as academic and as politician, they do not individually, or even taken together, add up to notability. JohnCD (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Mary Lou Serafine

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non notable. No Reliable Sources available. Request AfD delete.  ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ  ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣  06:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)  ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒  ―Œ  ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣  06:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Keep (see below): Some of the claims made would perhaps be notable if they could be sourced - listed in several "Who's who" directories, has published papers, perhaps even her claimed involvement in the Ferdinand Marcos case. But at the very least, most of the non-notable personal info needs to go -- Boing!   said Zebedee  07:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This person is notable for several reasons:
 * She performed tremendous amounts of research in the field of psychology while working at several research institutions.
 * Further, she is currently the Republican candidate for Texas State Senate District 14, so she is also a public figure in the Austin area and therefore notable.
 * Currently, the article is still being worked upon and will soon be polished for a fuller completion. Thus, it should not be deleted but rather updated and edited for completion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmay9 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Working on it is great, and I've changed my opinion to 'keep' to suggest allowing time for that. But a lot of what's currently there really needs to go - it shouldn't be her entire life story, but just an account of the notable parts of her life, with references. So the "resume" of her entire employment history, and a lot of the peacock writing needs to go. I suggest you (or whoever is working on it) read a few other Wikipedia biographies to get a feel for the required encyclopedic style -- Boing!   said Zebedee  09:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment to Jmay9 - Just a sec:
 * Performing research does not in itself make a person notable -- Notability (academics)
 * Running for office does not in itself make you notable -- Notability (people)
 * A principal test is whether the subject satisfies the General notability guideline
 * I don't yet see evidence that any of these guidelines have been satisfied, and at present the article reads more like a list of accomplishments or a resume. --RrburkeekrubrR 14:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Withdrawing AfD I believe the sources added since this AfD was raised are satisfactory for me. I would wish to withdraw the AfD. Thanks '' ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒  ―Œ  ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣  14:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

We are working on it. I was not aware that setting up a wikipedia page was that difficult. I assumed it to be much more user friendly for a layman like myself, but I was clearly wrong. Last night, a friend of mine said he had the knowledge of the code to write it out, so he did. We are trying to make things better and correct a lot of the vague terms given as well as the resume information given. Quite literally, I am figuring this out as I go. Thank you for your patience, and we'll try to get it in form ASAP --Jmay9 (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

In response to the subject not being notable enough, she has received various awards and notices on the national stage. She is, however, very behind on technology and I am thus trying to collect all of the relevant sources as well as I can.--Jmay9 (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you somehoew related to this subject, either personally or professionally? Woogee (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 11:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Four of the references are to Wikipedia, and therefore classed as not reliable. Another is to the homepage of UTSA with no mention of the subject here. Another establishes that she is on the staff of Divorce Recovery. So? Two more refer to publications of hers which may or may not be notable. Peridon (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment to Jmay9. Ideally you should be looking for evidence that she has been written about, preferably on multiple occasions in wide-circulation publications.  That is a principal test of notability.  But I'm not sure what you mean by "She is... very behind on technology" -- and who are "we"? --RrburkeekrubrR 21:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, article fails to show notability. Woogee (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * weak keep I was about to close this as withdrawn, but I took a look at other objections, and I  am myself  not sure she is notable. What I did was to start rewriting it, but I need to complete it and integrate the two sections. Some basic information is still missing, such as year of birth, and a reference to wherever the material in the article came from. Who's who in whatever is not considered a reliable source here, but it might do for such things as the dates of her degrees.  She might be notable as a politician, or as a  lawyer, or as an educational researcher. As a politician, we have not generally considered being an unelected candidate to state legislature as notable, (though perhaps we ought to,  but we are still arguing over the notability   of national level candidates).  . If she   wins, she will of course be considered  notable for   Wikipedia purposes & if the article is deleted now, it can be re-entered then, with the appropriate emphasis.  I don't think her legal career so far really counts as notable, unless there are major third party references about it.  As an educational researcher, it would depend on the citations to her publications; such citations serve the purpose of  secondary sources.   She only rose to Assistant professor, so there is no presumption of notability under WP:PROF, Looking at WoS, I see 22 papers  with good but not spectacular citations for some of them:  51, 43, 25, 18 , 17. Her book is in many libraries, and was reviewed.  Whether she is an expert in the psychology of music seems possible, but not certain.     DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I am reminded of a car I had to deal with once - the points were fairish, the plugs were fairish, the mixture was fairish, the rotor arm was fairish; the total result was wouldn't run. All the points made in the article strike me as fairish, but the net total isn't notable. With the timing of her candidature taken into account, I'd suspect a connection and that there is a degree of promotion hoped for. It isn't spammy in style, however. Based on the references I've checked, I'm going for delete without prejudice. Peridon (talk) 12:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Subject has done a lot of things but does not appear to have achieved notability to WP standards. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC).
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment In connection with Peridon's comments about timing of candidacy and possible promotional element, it is perhaps interesting to note that the article is essentially due to three single purpose accounts. Two of these have no other editing history, and the other one has no other editing history apart from a single edit, which introduced information about a Republican candidacy of another person. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete If we were to cut this article down to contain only the material for which any sources at all are provided, we would be left with a tiny stub. This is, however, ignoring the fact that even the few sources which are given do not go very far towards establishing notability. The article contains a list of her own publications, but very little in the way of independent sources. In fact there seem to be no sources for independent coverage of her as an academic, and only a few mentions of her political candidacy. It has not been shown that she satisfies the general notability guideline. She does not come anywhere near the requirements of [Wikipedia:Notability (academics)]]. WP:POLITICIAN explicitly states that "Just being ... an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability", quite apart from the limited amount of coverage in sources. Some of the arguments for keeping given above seem to miss the point. For example "has published papers": everybody working in academic research has published papers; even postgraduate students publish papers. This is about equivalent to arguing that a musician is notable because he/she "has performed in public". We also have "Her book is in many libraries", but this is not the point: notability requires that someone has written about her. Then we are told "she has received various awards and notices", but we are not told what these awards and notices are, nor given sources for the statement. Much the same applies to various other claims of notability to be found above: none of them really addresses Wikipedia's notability criteria. I think Peridon has got it right: various bits are fairish, but the net total isn't notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2010 (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.