Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meredith Jones (author)


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 03:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Meredith Jones (author)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

SPA/COI made and is the significant contributor to this article; academic of little note other than a bit of press coverage for doing a Kardashian symposium. It only get coverage because of the controversial nature/media obsession. Fails GNG Rayman60 (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. She has a plausible case for WP:AUTHOR through the reviews of her books (that I just added to the article) and a stronger case for WP:PROF as, seemingly, the world's leading academic scholar of the Kardashians. You may argue, as Glen Wright's book does, that scholarship on this topic is "silly", but she has attracted significant popular-media attention for it (which is why I put it down as #C7 not #C1). The nominator's "It only get coverage because of" argument is irrelevant; if it got coverage, it's notable. Incidentally, re #C1, don't even try to make sense of her Google Scholar profile, as it appears to be hopelessly muddled with works by other people with similar names. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "the world's leading academic scholar of the Kardashians" - scary thought, but based on what? 2 of the sources used for that in this article about the Kardashians are written by the subject herself. -- Netoholic @  20:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Those two sources probably should be moved to publications rather than being sources. The other sources for her work on the Kardashians are suitably independent. And the idea that a subject's notability should be based on the weakest sources in its article, rather than the strongest, is so wrong that I don't even know where to start. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Who here said "should be based on the weakest sources" - no one would say that. I'm asking for the direct evidence for the statement "world's leading academic scholar of the Kardashians" - that is a bold claim and deserves bold proof. -- Netoholic @ 20:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If it were a statement in the article itself, it would need reliable sources saying much the same thing. But for my opinion in an AfD, it can be based on my evaluation of what I see in the article. What I see is that major newspapers are publishing her opinion as an academic scholar of the Kardashians, and that she was the organizer of the first academic conference on the Kardashians, both indicative of being a leading scholar on the topic. And searching for "the Kardashians" on Google scholar didn't find much by others that would contradict that evaluation. Maybe there are other scholars of the same subject and she's #2 or #3 instead of #1; it doesn't make much differences for the purposes of this discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ↑ WP:BECAUSEISAIDSO ↑ -- Netoholic @ 22:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Someone explains in detail how they came to a conclusion, and that's exactly the same as a bare assertion?! --JBL (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:PROF and plausibly WP:AUTHOR, as argued just above. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * She's only credited as an author of one book, and a couple articles. She was an editor on the other books listed. -- Netoholic @  20:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Being quoted a couple of times in relation to what seems like a tabloid story-of-the-day and a one-day symposium publicity stunt in the wake of Jenner's gender transformation, does not equate to "substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity". Read Jones' damage control in the  Guardian article and she even points out that the whole thing "came under attack, especially on Twitter and other online forums". Note that no one is quoting Jones anytime in 2016-2019 about the Kardashians. No way does that support a claim to WP:PROF (the "Neil deGrasse Tyson" rule). Does not satisfy WP:AUTHOR due to writing only one book, and a few articles promoting said publicity stunt. Other books have her in the role of editor, and not even top-billing.  Gotta ask why the two "academics" voting above me are trying to WP:MASK this one. -- Netoholic @  21:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I consider the insinuations above that I must have some nefarious purpose in coming the opinion I reached to be a violation of both WP:AGF and WP:NPA. In addition, the scare quotes around academic are just gratuitous bad manners, and the investigation into the background of contributors to AfDs (despite it being no secret) creepy and bordering on WP:OUTING. Netoholic, you should back off and apologize. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Stop reading so much into things. -- Netoholic @ 22:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong, but I am honest. I have vanishingly little interest in Jones' subject material, but she does have a body of work (editing counts, too). I fail to see how being involved in a controversy necessarily makes Jones less notable; usually, that works quite the other way. (I also fail to see how the 2015 symposium was a "publicity stunt"; it looks like a typical brief meeting of people who study pop culture for a living. Nor would I call the Guardian opinion piece "damage control".) And what's with the scare quotes? XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Right now the only real evidence we have that it was a controversy was Jones' own Guardian article saying so. None of the reviews about her edited works talk about her abilities as an editor. Frankly, few people are talking about this person, and that is what notability (or lack thereof) means. The Kimposium! was a brief spike of attention, but didn't make a big enough impact at any level WP:PROF covers. -- Netoholic @ 23:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm genuinely confused about what point you are trying to make. First, you mention a (supposed) social-media controversy, in a way that clearly seems intended to diminish Jones' work. After I said that a controversy would tend to make the subject more notable, you are expressing doubt that it happened. I'm also still waiting for an explanation of the scare quotes that doesn't force me to abandon good faith. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Its about the threshold of evidence between what we can use in an article and what we can use in this discussion. I think her own Guardian proves that she does fit the WP:PROF criteria, but also that article is a bad source for use in the actual article here since its primary sourced. -- Netoholic @ 00:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that doesn't answer either of my questions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Anyone viewing this article as part of this discussion: please pay attention to the article history and Netoholic's edits to it, which (especially in light of the above comments) seem intended to strengthen Netoholic's case against keeping the article rather than to strengthen the article and the encyclopedia. I'm out of reverts for now so if N keeps pushing the same bad edits then someone else is going to have to revert them. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What an incredibly bold "call to arms". Yes, readers, please look at the edit history there. When David says he's "out of reverts" he means he's overspent them and broken 3RR. -- Netoholic @ 00:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete despite the edit war there isnt anything substantial about the subject from independent reliable sources. Gnangarra 02:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article has been substantially expanded since it was nominated for deletion. She has co-authored a book with two other authors (Professors from the University of Leeds) published by Manchester University Press and with a June 2019 publication date, which I have added.  One of the journal articles contributing to this was included in discussions on Australian Radio (Radio National – see article talk for links)... this was not Kardashian-related and shows her views as being seen as notable by reliable, third-party, independent media organisations.  I have added links to several single-author papers in reputable journals.  I suspect more can be found, and so I oppose deletion of this BLP.  EdChem (talk) 05:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding more and more to her bibliography is just more WP:MASKing, at best, and WP:OR, more likely, especially in how her publications have been weaved into a narrative in that "Jones was one of the four co-investigators" paragraph. -- Netoholic @ 10:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * as per WP:RS nothing meets that to establish notability, a new work to be published later in there year doesnt confer it just appears to be created as promotional for that. Gnangarra 10:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , try reading the references, like the website of the SSSS project which lists the team, or the back page of the report to the ESRC that states:
 * Principal Investigator: Ruth Holliday
 * Co-Investigators: David Bell, Meredith Jones, Elspeth Probyn and Jacqueline Sanchez Taylor
 * Then, come back here and here and apologise for suggesting I was engaging in WP:OR. You might also look at the part of my edit summary that says "media coverage of the project still to come", which includes RS in Australia - the non-trivial, independent, RS kind that a proper WP:BEFORE should have located, like the book being published in June 2019 (which negates your "she's only authored one book" line, which is actually two books, edited a couple of others, and contributed chapters to at least three others).  EdChem (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Since may 2019 the book being published in June 2019 is irrelevant unless it's a WP:PROMO, come back in August september after its published and the RS exist Gnangarra 10:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right, its less OR and more specifically WP:SNYTH. You cannot take her primary sources - her bibliography - and construct a paragraph from them. Feel free to list them as raw information in the Bibliography section (we can debate if individual works are warranted there if we have no secondary reviews), but they should not be used the way you have. -- Netoholic @  11:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So, you think that a report which states who is the principal investigator and who are the co-investigators – a report submitted to the funding agency – is not a reliable source for who was the principal investigator and who were the co-investigators? Or, are you suggesting that citing the book publisher's page on the book stating the position of the authors is not reliable?  Or, are you just trying to avoid actually reading the references?  Or ...?  EdChem (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You cannot take her primary sources - her bibliography - and construct a paragraph from them. Sure you can. It's often advisable, from a writing-flow point of view, since a paragraph often reads better than a list. We're supposed to be writing articles, not CV's. Converting a list to prose isn't synthesis; it's following the Manual of Style. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't at all add to notability... which is the whole point of this AFD to decide. Its just WP:MASKing. -- Netoholic @ 15:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per WP:NACADEMIC#1, demonstrated by 's excellent work on the article. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * demonstrated by what, still nothing to make the author notable, its just a list of TV appearances. There are no sources to support information about the subject. Gnangarra 03:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak delete The seems mostly "of note" due to a single event, ie, the seminar/workshop on the Ks.  The subject is quoted by a range of commentators and authors / journalists, but it seems mostly due to the single event, and is not significantly maintained.  The subject does have some citation exposure but pretty much routine and a lot of it is shared.  I am not sure there is enough on aggregation to pass GNG, not readily passing any NSUBJECT.  I suggest SINGLEEVENT and TOOSOON.  Aoziwe (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR based on XOR&#39;easter and David Epstein's votes/comments above. If not kept, this article should be partially merged/redirected to her wikinotable book Skintight: An Anatomy of Cosmetic Surgery. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Her book 'Skintight' has been cited >200 times according to Google Scholar. She has published 24 other books and book chapters. She is regularly cited in the UK and Australian media on the subject of cosmetic surgery - searching Google News for "Meredith Jones" "cosmetic surgery" turns up 15 results from 2011-2019. searching for "meredith jones" kardashian gives another 13, mostly in the UK and Europe. She seems to be a respected and productive academic who is regularly tapped for comment by the media. Polyharrisson (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2019 (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.