Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renée Bryce


 * 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. Either because WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE or by WP:NBIO, either is a convincing deletion argument. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Renée Bryce

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is humiliating to the person and colleagues are mocking for this wiki entry. Valuemyprivacyplease (talk) 00:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 14.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 00:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as article creator. (Incidentally, I was not informed of this AfD, and only happened to see it through my watchlist.) I see nothing derogatory in the article and it is not significantly different than Bryce's own web page in what it says about Bryce. I created the article because I believe the subject's research contributions, including nine publications with over 100 citations each, provide a clear pass of WP:PROF. We have a process WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE for requesting deletion for privacy reasons, but we have no evidence that the person requesting the deletion is actually the subject, and I don't think the notability of the article is sufficiently borderline for that process to be relevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Update: I have received email convincing me that this request really is from the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Neutral. After thinking about this some more, I'll be sad to see this go, and I still think she meets our notability standards, but I don't think the removal of the article is likely to cause serious damage to the encyclopedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. David Eppstein (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. David Eppstein (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. David Eppstein (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. I can see no objection to this BLP. However, an h-index of only 19 is lowish for this very highly cited field. If the request to delete is indeed genuine I would certainly support it. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC).
 * Delete at request of subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC).
 * Delete Per above. Pavlor (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Since when, absent legal issues, does the view of the article-subject matter at AFD? I mean, I have seen convicted criminals try to AFD their own article and we were pretty clear in those cases that what they thought didn't matter. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE seems to apply to articles that should be deleted for other reasons (lack of notability) anyway. It is very hard to see anything in this article that could reasonably be thought derogatory or embarrassing and it all appears to be well-sourced. However, I have concerns about the notability of this article - the only source independent of the source and their employer is the Dallas Business Journal and you'd expect to see multiple sources to reach WP:BASIC. Metrics like the h-index and the number of citations aren't decisive of notability, just indicators of potential notability - we've still got to pass WP:GNG. EDIT: Delete based only on the lack of notability. FOARP (talk) 15:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete the level of citation is not high enough to show notability in this field.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete All I know about this is what I've read here, but like David Eppstein, I can't see much difference in tone or content between this article and Prof. Bryce's own web page. Frankly, I'm a bit concerned: if the article's subject is the target of mockery for something so anodyne and boilerplate as this, we might be getting a glimpse of an unhealthy work environment. But if Prof. Bryce thinks that deleting the article is the best course of action, I have no grounds to argue otherwise. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. My view, which may not be popular, is that it is act of courtesy to consult a person before writing a BLP about them. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC).
 * I think there are good reasons involving neutrality (of article topic selection, choice of sourcing, and choice of what to say about the subject), ability to write at all about BLPs notable for negative things, and avoidance of even the appearance of editing for compensation, to not do so. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Second David Eppstein here. As well as the neutrality issues he so rightly raises, there is also the issue of the security of the editor who may be subject to retaliation and/or stalking, and the need to treat all subjects equally (i.e., the article on Bashar Assad quite obviously does not require the permission of the subject to be written, so no other article should require permission either). FOARP (talk) 12:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If this BLP had not been written its subject would not have had to endure the public humiliation of this AfD. I call for a speedy close and redaction of the AfD by the closing admin. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC).


 * Delete - fails our standards for academics; I support Biographies_of_living_persons. If there's anything derogatory, it's a blind item. FWIW, I worked full-time at RPI for one semester, but I never heard of the subject. Bearian (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I doubt if you would have heard of a self-effacing grad student of twenty years ago. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC).


 * Comment: Strictly based on notability, I'd say keep based on several works being highly cited. But I guess based on the verified wishes of the subject, this can be deleted. Thsmi002 (talk) 02:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Per policy cited by Bearian.  To make folks feel better about it, I'll also point out that the WP:NPROF C1 case is weaker than appears at first glance, as many of the highly cited papers in her GS profile are coauthored with her PhD advisor.  (So, I'm suggesting that her independent work makes a weaker case for notability so far.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: The article, as I see it now, consists of frame contents only — contents that must only be written when they encapsulate other actual worthwhile contents. Imagine someone asks you: "Who was Albert Einstein?" Your answer must not be "a German guy who was born in 1879, died in 1955, and worked in the Swiss Patent Office." A better answer is: "He's the guy who proved the theory of relativity and discovered that humanity is forever imprisoned inside the Solar System, unless we conceive a faster-than-light-drive." The article we are discussing is written like the former answer, not the latter. The question of "who was Renee Bryce" is answered as "some gal who earned a bachelor's and master's degree in computer science at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in 1999 and 2000, just like millions of other gals." flowing dreams (talk page) 11:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and the other comments. KingofGangsters (talk) 05:43, 21 October 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.