Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sachiko Tsuruta


 * 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) WJ94 (talk) 11:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Sachiko Tsuruta

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

There simply isn't enough third-party evidence that Sachiko Tsuruta satisfies Wikipedia’s notability criteria. Everything here is based around winning the Marcel Grossmann Prize. I doubt that this is enough. Even the list of publications is unspectacular. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I would argue to keep this article as the subject does pass WP:NACADEMIC. She has been awarded the Marcel Grossmann Prize, a prestigious international award for her scientific achievement. Additionally, WP:BIO has stated that many "academics are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." That being said, this article definitely needs work and more sources. Some sources I found in my search were: 1 2 3 4 5. There are others out there, these are just to name a few. --RealPharmer3 (talk) 12:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, to be true, the article needs work. I based it on translating the de.wikipedia entry for Tsuruta, where apparently standards for "notability" are not so strict. She did fundamental research in the study of neutron stars and pulsars in the 1960s which is noteworthy. -- SelfCorrection (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Shellwood (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep; a very prestigious award. It's also necessary to look at an academic's career in the context of their own time, not the present moment; her publication list is good for the times through which she worked. Her link to the neutron star makes her a very impressive figure. Elemimele (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Japan.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Won a notable award (see WP:ANYBIO) after discovering a notable thing (the star type). Therefore, in my opinion, clearly a notable person and this article clearly improves the encyclopaedia. CT55555  (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Faulty nomination doesn't even consider the correct notability criterion, WP:PROF. With seven triple-digit citation counts and others close to that, I think she passes WP:PROF, and the award makes a strong case for #C2. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets our notability criteria for WP:ANYBIO per the notable award and WP:PROF per citation count for her research, (and she sounds like an awesome woman in a field that mostly consists of men). This is an important contribution to the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof. This nomination seems to typify a prejudice in Wikipedia against women scientists exemplified in the Donna Strickland scandal. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC).
 * Actually, Xxanthippe, you should assume good faith. I have worked hard in my editing throughout a decade to ensure that women scientists are treated fairly. This page is in a much stronger state than it was when I nominated it. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Deletion nomination should be done on the basis of the subject's notability, established by analysis as defined here WP:BEFORE, not on the state of the article. CT55555 (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That goes without saying. But how does one know? I did google her. One makes a recommendation in good faith and trusts the expertise and judgment of other editors. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 04:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * One could try learning what the correct notability criterion is before making a deletion nomination that doesn't even address that criterion. I would think that rather less than a decade would be needed to learn such distinctions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a personal attack. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 05:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @BoyTheKingCanDance: It is nonsense to claim that a justified question of WP:Competence is a personal attack. You might like to withdraw this misguided nomination before further time of editors is wasted. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC).
 * I don't see how that is remotely true. The nom just didn't know about NPROF and so correctly assessed that the subject did not meet traditional GNG criteria, as would be the case for most academics, male or female. And the "Donna Strickland scandal" could just as easily have been named after Hiroshi Amano or Takaaki Kajita or Konstantin Novoselov or George Smith or John C. Mather or John L. Hall or Theodor Hansch or any of the other scientists who didn't have WP articles before they won a Nobel. The problem is entirely in editors' understanding of NPROF and the fact that there are probably hundreds of thousands of scholars who meet NPROF so our coverage is understandably incomplete. Baselessly accusing people of sexism is needlessly inflammatory and counterproductive. JoelleJay (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The case of Nobel Prize winner Donna Strickland was not that she did not have a BLP. She did, but it was rejected,,  at AfC by an editor who was apparently also unaware of WP:Prof. Many people make mistakes and most can learn from them. I hope that the nominator will. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC).
 * No, the draft was rejected based on not clearly meeting NPROF: the reviewer didn't have evidence that OSA membership was sufficient for C3, and there was no secondary source to support the importance of chirped pulse for C1. Those determinations didn't have anything to do with gender, the same conclusion would be made for any such draft. The media's misinformed and overblown reaction, particularly their mischaracterization of a routine guideline-based AfC rejection as a "deletion", further calls into question the validity of their other "Wikipedia v. women" reports.
 * The point I am trying to make is that in the current case the nom's mistake is entirely his ignorance of NPROF, so it's completely inappropriate to assert this AfD is because of sexism and even more so to tie it to a separate event that also had nothing to do with sexism. JoelleJay (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Your post-facto rationalization is dubious at best. At the time of the decline she already had a good citation record and the draft listed her as a fellow of a major society, both giving a good case for passing WP:PROF. There is no evidence from the draft decline that the decliner even considered these things. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * To add numbers to support Eppstein’s argument: on Google scholar Donna Strickland had 9441 citations to her work before she got the Nobel Prize. This gives a stunning pass of WP:Prof by the standards of the time, where even 1000 citations has sometimes  been argued as a case for a Keep at AfD. The decliner of the draft BLP did not seem to have considered this matter. If the BLP had gone to AfD it would, in my view and based on current standards, have received an overwhelming pass. To revert to something more on-topic: I think that the notability of Sachiko Tsuruta is not just run-of the mill but is, because of her citation record and her prize, very strong. I hope that editors who look for an increased presence of women scientists on Wikipedia will vote to keep this BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC).
 * And the assertion that the decline was based on sexism violates AGF and NPA, in addition to being directly contradicted by the decliner's stated rationale. AfC reviewers are not required to do a BEFORE, let alone know the nuances of field-relative citation counts, especially when being heavily cited isn't mentioned as a claim to notability in the submission; nor is it expected they personally investigate the stature of specific academic societies; and N/OR very clearly require secondary sources, which were not in the draft. Again, a routine decline because the draft did not make a clear case for notability or comply with policy is not sexism. JoelleJay (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your views, but they weren’t shared by the international media, and harm was done to Wikipedia’s reputation for gender neutrality. Wikilawyering about following rules blindly (particularly when WP:IAR is available) is not going to change that. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC).
 * The international media have always had a severe misunderstanding of Wikipedia processes, as should be immediately evident by their calling the decline a "deletion" and their baselessly asserting this was motivated by sexism; this is in contrast to the overwhelming support of the decline among actual Wikipedians. The text of the submitted draft did not demonstrate notability, and as AfC specifically does not expect reviewers to do BEFORE it is irrelevant whether the draft would have survived AfD (which I'm sure it would have, and if it had been created according to the AfC submission rules this would have been evident). There is nothing here to suggest that the draft would have been treated any differently if it was for a man. That's not "following rules blindly". Thousands of drafts of researchers get submitted, why on earth should a reviewer be expected to track down each of their citation profiles (and compare them to others in the field; simply looking at citation counts (especially from GS) in isolation is lazy and strongly discouraged by NPROF itself) on the off chance they might meet C1? Why should they apply IAR for arbitrary subjects when the importance of the subject isn't clear -- unless you are suggesting Bradv should have accepted the draft because it's on a woman? JoelleJay (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that you have chosen to give the name of the decliner, which I have not done. He has learnt from his mistake and has not repeated it. In fact, he is doing fine work editing Wikipedia and I hope he will continue that for a long time to come. If following the rules, with neglect of WP:IAR, leads to a public relations catastrophe for Wikipedia, then the rules need to be changed. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC).
 * I am asking why he should have considered IAR in that case. Nothing in the draft suggested she was anywhere close to receiving a Nobel, how would he have known he was declining anything more than the usual SPA articles on academics? The only way to avoid accidentally declining actually-notable subjects would be to force reviewers to do thorough BEFOREs, which would eviscerate AfC efficiency and participation. And it would defeat the whole purpose of having a system where the burden of proper article creation is just slightly shifted toward the article creator rather than other editors. JoelleJay (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You may dig up as many excuses as you like. The fact of the matter is that Wikipedia experienced a public relations catastrophe as a result of the Donna Strickland episode. Perhaps some thought needs to be given to how to stop this happening again in the future. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2023 (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.