Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Campbell (educator)


 * 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 no consensus. This deletion discussion was initated by an initially unproven request for deletion by the article subject that was substantiated later in the course of discussion by Bearian, citing concerns that Mrs. Campbell is being harassed as a consequence of this page existing. Most of the keep arguments here rely on notability claims, which are reasonably argued and mostly uncontested. The key delete arguments rely on WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and the arguments made by the subject but haven't gone uncontested (e.g Xxanthippe's and David Eppstein's concerns) and the counterarguments are non-negligible.

On balance, it seems like this discussion has no clear consensus in favour of deletion as there are valid points on both sides, and it seems like the criteria on WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE do not necessarily require deletion. That said, I'll be extending the protection of the article to indefinite and open a discussion at WP:BLPN as the concerns raised here should not be simply let slide. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Rebecca Campbell (educator)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject, Rebecca Campbell, would like article removed Feeneyh (talk) 14:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

*Keep It looks like there's a good case for passing WP:PROF, and it's not clear how a fairly standard (if unpolished) academic bio like this could constitute such a risk to the subject that it outweighs the public interest in having the page available. Should MSU also scrub her from their website? Nor is it clear that the deletion request is actually legitimate. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Initially closed as a keep but I was told a formal request way made to delete. Relisting in order to allow for a proper discussion.
 * Comment. Is this a genuine request by a 1 edit Spa? If not, its a slam-dunk Keep (to use a sports metaphor, hopefully correctly). Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC).
 * Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. 32 publications with over 100 cites each and an h-index of 55 is an easy pass of WP:PROF. The US government and APA awards   are a likely pass of #C2. We could possibly consider WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, but only with stronger evidence that the request actually comes from the subject, and even then I think she's too prominent for that to work. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. No evidence has been supplied that the deletion request is genuine. I suggest that AfD nominations should not be allowed, except through an admin, until a user is WP:extended confirmed. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC).
 * Comment - regarding the level of evidence needed to indicate that the subject would like deletion is interesting. We frequently accept users who take a username indicating the person more directly as indication - despite no more evidence on them (e.g. the recent Mark Lindquist AfD). OTRS is the more preferred route, though obviously the subject has to agree to have their confirmation made public. This comment is not a commentary on the notability (or lack) of the subject Nosebagbear (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - full professor at a large research university with significant research (and alma mater of two of my relatives). I would agree to deletion of a marginal case or a minor (e.g. child actor). I've reached out via email to the subject. Bearian (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 12:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep No evidence that the subject wants deletion, no reason given for proposed deletion, article complies with policy. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 12:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - After I emailed the subject, I received a reply email from her requesting deletion due to emailed threats on her work email, connected from an external link on the article. It seems that disturbed persons are finding her email address via a link from her Wikipedia page, and emailing her weekly threats of a serious and credible nature. In lieu of deletion, I also requested long-term semi-protection on WP:RFPP. Bearian (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ymblanter protected for 1 week, which I've increased to 2 to cover the potential length of the AfD. If the page isn't deleted, a further discussion can be had as to long-term protection Nosebagbear (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: Subject easily passes notability requirements. -- Darth Mike (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I have reconsidered my !vote in the light of Bearian's further information, and now I tip over to the "delete" side. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging Xxanthippe, David Eppstein, and Roxy, the dog who referred to the lack of confirmation. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, very sadly, on account of Bearian's remarks and with thanks for his initiative. Removing a link is, in my view, insufficient. Thincat (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * comment we appear to be being asked to delete our encyclopaedic article because the subjects email address is on the subjects workplace website? Roxy, the dog . wooF 15:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. So we are to have no coverage on researchers of sexual violence because the crazies will seek them out and harass them? That seems like an inappropriate outcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. This is a significant and difficult issue. I can appreciate arguments on either side. In this particular case the abused email address is of msu origin. I note that many institutions do not make public the email addresses of their staff (which makes it harder for both ill wishers and well wishers to contact the staff). The problem is with the msu website, not with Wikipedia. Perhaps the best solution would be for msu to change her work email and remove it from public view rather than delete the Wikipedia BLP. My earlier keep is maintained as the reported reason for deletion is not sufficient. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC).
 * The problem arose from lax security of the subject's web site. Wikipedia was not to blame. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC).


 * I guess the best argument for "keep" that I could make is that it's on MSU to implement some basic #@%&#!-ing precautions, and perhaps it's too late for anything we do to make a real difference. I mulled that over, failed to be satisfied by any course of action, and ended up less unsatisfied with "delete" than with "keep". XOR&#39;easter (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, to give my take on this after !voting delete. I think we should delete the article because the subject asked us to, not specifically because of links or email addresses, not because of the nature of her research. I don't think WP would be significantly harmed in this particular instance though I do realise that deletion might be seen as the start of an undesirable trend. In balancing encyclopedic comprehensiveness against reducing personal risk (or fear of risk), on the whole, I think the latter is more important. Thincat (talk) 08:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Since everybody is commenting, I just spent a trivially easy two minutes finding her email and phone number, in numerous places. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 08:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - Delete per . It’s unfortunate that it has come to this, but I can’t on good conscience say that we should ignore the subject’s request on something like this especially given the ongoing harassment which may be linked to our page. Michepman (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The harassment is not linked to Wikipedia, which does not give her email address. Her email address (and telephone number) are on her own public web site and many other places on the web, the former also on her Google scholar profile, but not on Wikipedia. Any connection of the harassment to Wikipedia is unproven. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC).


 * Comment. E-mails on her WP BLP cannot be the source of the problem as her details are easily searchable online.  In such cases I would be suspicious that there is some unfavourable content in the BLP that the subject does not like, however, in this case, I don't think any such unfavourable content exists?  It is possible that her work leads her to give testimony in court cases, for which she can be harassed by defendants etc.  However, I am still not sure that deleting her WP BLP would give her much additional anonymity in regard to this, given it is just a collection of public sources?  Perhaps a follow-up e-mail could be sent to the subject outlining these points (which are also made above by other editors), so she could clarify her rationale? Britishfinance (talk) 10:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.