Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roberta Seelinger Trites


 * 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. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Roberta Seelinger Trites

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails biographical notability standards. Just being a professor does not make somebody notable, neither does publishing a few books.  Dr Strauss   talk   19:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep given what the current CV Says: "Distinguished Professor", "simply a professor" would not apply based on WP:PROF's statements. SwisterTwister   talk  21:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's like saying "award winning" makes someone automatically notable. I won a spelling bee in the second grade, so I'm award winning, so I'm notable. What the hell are you even on to think that just randomly slapping an adjective before your name makes you pass muster as notable? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This is all the more true since a CV is not an indepdent, reliable source. It is a document intentionally created by the subject to boost their academic employability and their reputation. As I mentioned below, if this was a named chair it would have value, but being "distinguished" is just an adjective with no meaning.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My response would be the same as 's. I could upload a CV saying I'm a professor and I'm notable per the current version of WP:PROF.  Independent, reliable sources are more important.    Dr Strauss   talk   21:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, actually, you couldn't. Unless you have an academic website at an accredited university. While you could in theory do so then, if you did so there without actually being one it would be career suicide and if you didn't have tenure you could be sure your appointment would not be continued at best, and at worst the provost of other relevant chief academic officer would fire you instantly. If you had tenure a disclipinary hearing could reasonably be opened against you by the provost. Publicly falsifying credentials is a MASSIVE deal and is pretty much the only thing in North American academics that is guaranteed to land an academic out of a job. There is absolutely zero possibility that this woman is not a distinguished professor. Your comment above displays ignorance of how academia in North America works. These titles matter. A lot. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being British then, they don't appear to be as important here. Edit: also, you still haven't addressed the point that the "distinguished" bit is not from an independent source.  Whether it would be career suicide or not is irrelevant and we shouldn't just throw away WP:IRS for the sake of preserving a hagiography.  Edit: putting "distinguished" in front of someone's name does not make one distinguished, it just means she has reached a certain level of post-nominals.  Surely we should judge her work by its fruits and the impact it has had on her field of study which amounts to very little .    Dr Strauss   talk   21:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * an official press release from the university verifies that she holds the academic rank of distinguished professor . That is independent of her in that it is the official communications arm of her employer verifying that she holds the academic rank of Distinguished Professor. If this was a business person, it wouldn't count towards the GNG because it was a connected source, but the GNG does not apply to academics: we simply need verification that they meet one of the criteria of PROF. For verification of rank, their faculty listing is normally enough for the reasons pointed out above, but now we also have verification from an arm of the organization independent of her. Re: your last point, see 's comment below. That someone holds a distinguished professorship is proof that she actually has had a major impact in her field. At my alma mater we had waiting lists for academics to get one of the few distinguished chairs available because of funding concerns. These aren't just handed out like candy. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep "Distinguished Professor" at a research university is notability according to WP:PROF. Unlike what TPH seems to think, it's a formal title, not a random adjective, and indicates she is an authority in her field. I added the necessary information to support WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. Four important books, one held in over a thousand libraries. We'll still need to track down the book reviews which will prove NAAUTHOR,, but that's routine.  DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Notability for authors is not passed by having your work widely held. It is passed by having your work reviewed by sources that are reliable and selectively only review works they feel are of significance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Being a "distinguished professor" does not meet any of our guidelines for academic notability. Being a "distinguished professor" is not the same as holding a "named chair", which she clearly does not. So she can not pass on those guidelines. Here contributions to the field of English-langauge literature are not significant enough to meet prong 1 of academic notability. She meets no academic notability criteria, and so is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The article is also an appaling failure of GNG. World Cat listing of works is not a sign of notability. Notability as an author derives from indepth reviews of works by the subject. Everything else is works so closely connected with the subject that they are in no way 3rd party independent reliable secondary sources. We cannot have articles built from a subjects CV, websites and directory listings, we need more substantial sources than this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * you have confused the GNG with WP:PROF. We only need to show that the person is an authority in the field, or holds a distinguished or named professorship in a major university(or any the other specific alternatives) ; Are you aware that these two guidelines are alternatives, not that the specialized guideline is only a presumption? I don't see why you even mention GNG, when that is not the applicable guideline.  DGG ( talk ) 16:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * maybe, but bear in mind the proposal at WT:PROF. Still a proposal I know, but fingers crossed xD    Dr Strauss   talk   21:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: I'm minded of the people who do handsprings over someone being a "Vice President" at a bank, not knowing that banks give out "Associate/Assistant/Deputy/Executive VP" titles to all middle-managers, pretty much like cupcakes at the company picnic. No doubt there are colleges who paste "Esteemed and Exalted Distinguished Professor" titles too, in lieu of higher salaries and plush furnishings in their offices.  Does the subject meet the GNG, NAUTHOR or PROF?  No.  Nha Trang  Allons! 19:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Not at research universities, where it is actually quite difficult to get. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Important comment: please note that there is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline...supersedes GNG per this well-attended RfC.    Dr Strauss   talk   21:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * nonsense. each guideline can and does specify the relationship. The RfC you mention dealt with NSPORTS, and its conclusion has been repeatedly challenged in individual AfDs. About 2/3 of them have followed the RfC, and 1/3 have not.  The consensus on a RfC or anything else  is not what is said there, but  what is done in consequence.  Some RfCs are consistently adopted without dissent. Others are not. We make the rules in WP, and we can make them however we please within basic policy. We can then interpret them however the consensus wishes to, and make whatever exceptions the consensus accepts.   (The net result for me is that sports AfDs are so entirely frustrating that I no longer participate, because it is impossible to tell what rules will be used.) The role of the closer is to interpret the discussion, paying attention to policy-based arguments. WP:N is not policy, but a guideline, and attempts to elevate it to a policy have been repeatedly rejected. The GNG is one part of the WP:N guideline, and it says specifically that it is the general rule, not the ultimate rule. The history of AfDs is the history of interpretations and exception and disputes. By now, about a quarter million of them. This is not a rational way to go forward. Fortunately, the people working on AfDs have had a pretty clear idea of how to do better.  (Its a little like NSCHOOLS--the RfC said a number of confusing things, and has essentially been ignored at AfD. 99% of the decisions have gone on just as before. Dr.S, what is your basis here--an objection in principle to having different rules, or a dislike for the results? In either case, you're mistaken. A diversity of practices in an intrinsic and desirable characteristic of WP, and the results are determined as they ought to be by the consensus of individuals. I point out that even so, academics are drastically under-represented, and what we need to do is to expand our coverage. You talk as if policy constrained us. It does not.  DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep that RfC was on NSPORT, and what you are saying it did would change the text of WP:N itself, which makes no distinction between SNGs and the GNG. Some of the SNGs make themselves subordinate to the GNG, but PROF does not and the explicit text of N makes it clear that it doesn't have to (see point 1 of the notability test in the summary). There is no backdoor way to change the totality of our most significant sub-policy guideline, and people need to remember that the GNG is only one part of N.Re: this case: she holds the academic rank of a distinguished professor at a research university. If she did have to meet WP:GNG, which she doesn't, she inevitably would: you don't get those ranks without there being immense scholarship written about or citing your work. There will be exceptionally credible book reviews about her and peer reviewed papers debating with her thoughts and analyzing them, while discussing her directly. This nomination is based off not knowing how research universities in North America operate. She is a clear pass of PROF, and if I had access to more databases than I currently do I could present a very compelling case for GNG. Part of the reason we have PROF is that the average Wikipedia user doesn't have access to the material needed to assess notability based on coverage so it is a objective test to see what people we know are notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sourcing supports this and it meets all of the applicable guidelines. --  Dane talk  18:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Sourcing supports nothing beyond the fact that the person exists and has had some books published. This is par for the course for all professors, especially in English-language literature. We have nothing that amounts to even passing coverage of her or her work from any source that is not in some way vested in building up her reputation. While the amount she influences her university webpage is hard to say (it is often a very lot), it is still driven by a desire to build a positive reputation and not the type of 3rd-party source all articles, especially BLP articles, need to be based on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Struck duplicate !vote above, only one allowed, but feel free to comment all you'd like. North America1000 02:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * question At first glance I don't see that she meets the notability criteria for professors or the general notability guideline. However, she did win the Children's Literature Association Book Award in 2002. I think that should help with notability, but I don't know if it's enough. I added the award and source to her article, but I hope someone will check and make sure I did it correctly--and correct it if I didn't.Sandals1 (talk) 22:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * keep It looks like she's notable as an author.Sandals1 (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Contrary to what several uninformed participants above state, "distinguished professor" is a specific job title that clearly and explicitly passes WP:PROF. At my university, it is reserved for faculty with a very high level of accomplishment; for instance, for scientists, it is roughly at the level of being in the National Academy of Sciences (and well past the level needed to pass #C1 or #C3 via lesser society fellowships). It's more difficult to assess that level in the humanities but I think we can safely assume that Trites' campus did so. And although the article could use significant improvement, I expect that if that effort were made then it would uncover many reviews of her books, enough to also pass WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Update: Along with some other improvements, I have added ten reliably published and in-depth book reviews to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * PS It looks like Illinois State names at most one or (rarely) two distinguished professors per year . Given a faculty size of 1200 and a rough estimate of a career span of 20 years/faculty member, that would mean only one in sixty of their professors could hope to ever achieve this title. Not exactly "like candy". —David Eppstein (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although GS citations are not outstanding (albeit in a very low cited field), library holdings of her books give a pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC).
 * Keep per recent article improvements. Meets PROF (likely) and AUTHOR (definitely). K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 6 September 2017 (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.