Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rita M. Gross


 * 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. Clear consensus to delete but has potential to be a well written BLP in future should wish to take the time and energy. Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 04:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Rita M. Gross

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Buddhist Lopon (acharya) and scholar. The subject has requested deletion because of the insertion of improperly sourced negative information by an IP. When the subject removed the material, their change was repeatedly reverted. Judging by the lack of references and the page view stats from before the insertion of the defamatory material, this is a BLP Wikipedia can live without. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt unless the BLP subject changes her mind in light of recent apologies to her by editors who mistakenly reverted the BLP violations back into her article. While I can find next to nothing about her in Google News, she is a prolific and well-cited academic writer, and I am sure someone clued up in her field of scholarship could write a decent article on her. But the article we currently have is not it. It cites no secondary sources whatsoever. -- J N  466  03:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The current condition of the article notwithstanding, Rita M. Gross is herself notable. She was foundational in defining the field of feminist theology. She was awarded a one-year fellowship in 1978 by the American Council of Learned Societies. ("Rita M. Gross, Assistant Professor of Religious Studies, University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire, received a 1978 fellowship from ACLS for research on Concepts of Deity as Female in Hinduism." 1979 Bulletin of the Council on the Study of Religion, American Academy of Religion.) She's written numerous introductory works on the subject of feminist theology, including a Cambridge Companion chapter: "Feminist theology as theology of religions". In her own books there is a standard sort of author biography of the sort we don't use for notability, but in dozens of scholarly books edited by others, she is given a biographical paragraph because she is selected as a contributor. Examples: Gross is one of four noted feminist theologists who are analyzed by Kay Koppedrayer in the 2007 article, "Feminist Applications of Buddhist Thought" in the Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion. Her publisher, Continuum, honored her with the 1999 Choice Outstanding Academic Book Award for the book Soaring and Settling: Buddhist Perspectives on Social and Theological Issues. She was an editor of the academic journal Buddhist–Christian Studies. Gross is used as a reference in the Wikipedia articles Women in Buddhism, Three Roots, Dhammananda Bhikkhuni, and Ramakrishna; further reading at Guru-shishya tradition; and an external link at Nondualism. I think the article should be kept and rewritten. Binksternet (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the point here is that the subject has requested deletion since we are unable to stop people from adding "mean and inaccurate things". As the complaint points out, such things were re-added to the article but careless editors when the subject correctly removed them. I see no reason why every "notable" person should be included in Wikipedia. If someone who is not high-profile asks for their article to be deleted, we should honour that request. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete agree that the subject does not appear to be very notable. Avoidance of WP:ATTACK and other WP:BLP issues swing it for me as a deletion argument. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 03:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as a gesture of goodwill. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. Cla68 (talk) 07:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, Salt - as per the subjects request. - Its a shame that en wikipedia is unable to defend the articles about living people from attacks. The edits in question were all from the university where the subject was working, and its an even bigger shame that experienced editors reinforce the problems with low quality vandal patrol work. If wikipedia policies and guidelines had been implemented correctly with even a minor degree of diligence we would not find ourselves in this situation of there being a good faith request for deletion that it's almost unavoidable to honor. - Youreallycan (talk) 12:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as per the nominator's rationale. --CrypticFRD talk 12:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Am ok with deletion under circumstances.  The sole keep !vote at the moment doesn't really show a clear case for notability.  By all means, if her research is notable enough to deserve mention in a substantive article regarding feminist theology, it should be, regardless of whether a separate BLP exists.--Milowent • hasspoken  05:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps mentioning Gross in a feminist theology article is the best way forward. People saying not-nice things about her will always be off-topic in such an article. Binksternet (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, Salt I handle quite a few such cases. We have to be sensibly committed to living persons' requests without being completely bound to our notability guidelines in cases like this.  Wifione  Message 20:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Has it been confirmed (for example, by OTRS) that editor who requested deletion is indeed the subject of the article? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Some things don't require "official" verification, just a little good faith. I am in no doubt at all that the the subject is the complainant at BLPN User:Rita gross (contributions) and is the requester that her wikipedia biography be remove from its hosting here. Youreallycan (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite so confident. If the presence (and admitted poor maintenance) of the Wikipedia article about a person were the subject of such concern or distress to that person, then why would they not go to the trouble of contacting OTRS? Are we to assume that they didn't see the suggestion that they do so? Or found it too complicated?


 * It was suggested above that most of the vandalism came from people at the university where the person teaches. Isn't it possible that such vandals would get similar satisfaction from getting the article deleted? (We do know that many academics are very keen for there to be an article about themselves - imagine being the one academic in the department whose entry says it was deleted due to lack of notability and other concerns, when all your colleagues have articles describing their publications and achievements.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As per your comment I have just sent her an email to her webpage email address requesting verification. Similar vandals are not going to remove their vandalism and then complain when its replaced. I have no doubt at all.Youreallycan (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Where is the evidence for "We do know that many academics are very keen for there to be an article about themselves" - shall we support allowing living people the freedom to "opt out" and see what happens? Youreallycan (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No harm in requesting the lady to identify herself to OTRS. All it would take for the lady is an email from an official email... Demiurge1000 is being sensible and logical. Wifione  Message 20:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "imagine being the one academic in the department whose entry says it was deleted due to lack of notability and other concerns, when all your colleagues have articles describing their publications and achievements" - imagine being an academic who professes to care about such things. they probably don't merit having one.--Milowent • hasspoken  20:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability is nothing to do with "merit".


 * Further, I was talking about the motivation of the (potential) vandals. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * keep notable theologian. you of course understand that the german wikipedia article (roughly equivalent) will remain, but it's not as prone to vandalism as english. i see the same dysfunctional warnings to academics trying to edit out vandalism. how many reviews do you want me to add? i see she has quite a discussion with Katherine K. Young; delete her for balance? Slowking4 ⇔ †@1₭ 21:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per subject request. Kaldari (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note - In my capacity as an WP:OTRS volunteer. I have received an email from the subject of this article clearly verifying that they are the person that has been requesting deletion of this article asap, for the reasons that have been stated in this discussion. Youreallycan (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete and Salt per persuasive nomination and first !vote, and per confirmation by Youreallycan that it was indeed the subject of the article that requested deletion. The arguments for notability do have some merit, but the history of BLP violations and vandalism, and almost no useful addition of sourced content, persuade me that this must be one of the exceptions where the BLP issues and the preference of the subject should carry the day. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom. → Σ  τ  c . 04:35, 24 December 2011 (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.