Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Tseng


 * 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. Missvain (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Michelle Tseng

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Well-meaning but premature article about an AscProf at UBC that was jumped out of draft after two declines at AfC (mix-up with previous draft of the same name - see below) , so I guess we need to make a detour here. I don't see any indication of passing WP:GNG, and as per publication history and professional position, no chance at WP:NPROF either. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, concur this is WP:TOOSOON for NACADEMIC, and I don't see a GNG pass here.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 15:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete does not look like it passes GNG. -Cupper52Discuss! 15:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article wasn't rejected at AfC. This is a WikiEd student project which does not use AfC, and the article was moved to mainspace as indicated by the class timeline. It is unlikely the editor even knew about the AfC draft. Sadly many of the articles from this class, Wiki_Ed/University_of_Washington/Uncommon_Leaders_-_Women_and_BIPOC_in_Science_(Spring_2021), may run into notablity problems due to lack of independent references. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * to be precise, the identical draft was declined at AfC (three times actually), with this duplicate being moved to main from the sandbox between declines 2 & 3. So yes, it 's a bit of a mess. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not a duplicate. A coincidence. The AfC draft was started in January by an IP from Ontario. This article started in a student's subpage, User:Leeperhb/Michelle Tseng, in April by a student from the University of Washington in a class that started at the end of March. The text is different. I don't see how they are related. The student never submitted the article at AfC - a reviewer put the decline template on the subpage after declining the other article at AfC, even though the student's article had the WikiEd dashboard template at the top. (Admittedly that template doesn't say it is a WikiEd student template.) I believe the class is writing articles about people they are learning about in the class. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh I see, the decline template was copied over from the draft. That's a little misleading - probably not a good practice. - In any case, looks like both treatments run to the same content; at least there seem to be no differences in sourcing that would suggest a different notability assessment. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to see if the WikiEd template can be modified to be more informative. I think that would prevent things like this. The notability issues are about the person, not about whichever article we are looking at. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, WP:TOOSOON for academic notability and no evidence of general notability. I'm concerned about potential editors being driven away from Wikipedia by badly-planned course projects that fail to guide the students towards more clearly notable subjects and lead to their work getting slapped down at AfD, but that's not a problem that can or should be fixed by making the wrong decision at the AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - just needs more independent references, rather than her own papers. Added 4. Nfitz (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I can only identify 2 non-independent references, I feel that is a good amount based on the information I gave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leeperhb (talk • contribs) 23:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * , at a first glance none of the references are independent of her. Which ones do you mean? The requirements for a researcher to be notable enough in Wikipedia's use of the term are listed at WP:NPROF. Tseng is much to early in her career to meet them. And she hasn't had things written about her - quoting her doesn't count. Did your instructor talk about Wikipedia's notability requirements for articles? Your class has produced many well-written articles. It would have been nice if more of them were about people who were already well-enough known in Wikipedia's sense for an article. It seems like a waste of work. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of the references I added are independent of her, CBC, France 24, Daily Mirror (which I admit is sometimes a problematic source, but this seems to match other publications). How are they not independent? Even the Evolutionary Applications one is a bit of both. Nfitz (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , the CBC article very short and is about beetles. It is based on her research but the article is not about her. The content of the CBC article comes from the paper she and her students wrote and an interview with her. There is no independent reporting, and only a very brief description of her. The France 24 article is another short article about the beetles based on her paper. I can't see the Daily Mail article but I assume they picked up the same material. Sources to show notability need to be reliable, independent, and have significant coverage (all 3 at once) - name mention is not enough. The substantial material about her in the Evolutionary Applications article was written by her. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, WP:TOOSOON for notability through WP:NPROF and it seems her advocacy work is not high profile enough for WP:GNG. --hroest 00:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:TOOSOON. It's very rare that assistant profs manage to meet WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with others that her citation profile is not yet up to the standards of NPROF. JoelleJay (talk) 19:12, 27 May 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.