Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shannon Bohle


 * 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. Favonian (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Shannon Bohle

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Bohle seems to just be one of many run of the mill librarians. She has not done anything that seems to pass any of the established notability guidelines. She made a 3D film, was in some artificial intelligence contest, and is on the editorial board of an academic journal. None of these are things that establish notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It appears you are nominating the article for deletion on the grounds of notability. The article meets the requirement of notability by meeting one of the requirements. It "has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization" Notability_(web). The contest was an international competition run by The White House and sponsored by the Department of Defense. The contest results and summaries of the project was reported before the United States Congress. Additionally, the film was selected and shown by the NOBEL PRIZE foundation at the Nobel Museum. According to the guidelines for notability, the subject should be cited in "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports." The article has a substantial number of published citations, fulfilling these requirements and this information "can be verified through independent sources." There are 23. The article also has "the appropriate level of detail and significance for that article." Google Books: 5 listings, Articles: 15 or so. Google also shows several articles published with the journal Nature online and print version. Bides time (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have a COI here? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC).
 * I'm not sure why you are citing Notability_(web), as she does not appear to be a website. There is similar but not identical language at WP:BIO, a more appropriate notability guideline: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 05:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 05:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 05:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Little sign of impact here. No pass of WP:Prof. Her ancestry may be estimable but notability is not inherited. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC).

International competition run by The White House and sponsored by the Department of Defense. FRAS = Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society (elected), Consultant for the National Academy of Sciences. 184.58.103.48 (talk) 08:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC) — 184.58.103.48 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep - WP:Prof Criteria fulfilled:
 * 1) "2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level."
 * 1) "3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE)."


 * Delete doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF, looks like it's been written by someone with a WP:COI. With regards to FRAS, fellowship of the Royal Astronomical Society is open to "any person over the age of 18 whose application is acceptable to the Society" - which means that it isn't selective - although virtually everyone in Britain who is a professional astronomer is a member, so are most serious amateurs with a telescope pointing at their attic's skylights.  As it isn't selective, the fellowship doesn't meet the criteria in WP:PROF. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. No credible claim of notability, nevermind false assertions (e.g. as a "fellow" discussed above); sources are mostly web ephemera, PR, institutional newsletters, etc; much of the article's text is actually about the subject's relatives; lots of puff, and so forth. Uncontroversial delete. Agricola44 (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC).
 * Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - Election to Fellow was published in Astronomy & Geophysics, Volume 53, Issue 1, page 1.39, February 2012. If you can't find it online--Go to a library that has it. Not everything is available in full-text online for free. Google search shows "New Fellows - 2012 - Astronomy & Geophysics - Wiley Online Library"..."Shannon Bohle, St Edmund's College, University of Cambridge." Anyone can be a "Friend" and have a membership, but FELLOWS must be nominated by an existing fellow and be elected by the council. Bides time (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You've now !voted twice. Please strike one of these votes (though not your comments). As explained above, there is a fallacy of equivocation here. "Fellow" in the Royal Astronomical Society (RAS) is not selective in the same sense as, for example, for the National Academy of Sciences. It is rather the name that RAS uses for members, for example as explained at their benefits of membership page. I'm sorry, but this line of argument toward notability is a clear dead-end. Agricola44 (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC).

This is the form for the Fellow to nominate a new person: http://www.ras.org.uk/images/stories/ras_pdfs/members/Forms/Application%20form%202012%20Route%201.pdf Bides time (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it clearly shows that all a person has to do to support someone's application is say that they are a student aiming toward a degree in astronomy or a related topic. That's not "highly selective" by any stretch of the imagination. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - The remaining argument seems to be focused on the prizes that she took a second-place-in-category in are either "well-known" or "prestigious". Judging by the fact that Google finds less than two dozen unique hits for pages mentioning her and her category (which is a fairly recent event, well into the web era), it suggests there is not much attention paid to the results. I am, however, be willing to be swayed by evidence that the award is well-known and/or prestigious, even where the winners are not mentioned. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with ColoradoNaturalist.... This person seems to have done important work, and her entry is written up quite well. I see no good reason why this should be deleted. It seems like a valuable entry for wikipedia. I vote that this entry is kept! Stevenwcronin (talk) 01:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC) — Stevenwcronin (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep - Not sure why the question was raised. Secondary sources? Check. Awards for contests that have their own Wikipedia entry? Check. Publications and other notable contributions? Check.  Elected as "fellow" of a well-established academic organization? Check.  Awards? check.  All these have been documented in the above entries.  Finally, is she currently doing significant work, as in her Open Notebook petition? Check.  She qualifies.ColoradoNaturalist (talk) 20:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC) — ColoradoNaturalist (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete per the keep arguments above and the nom and Agricola44. --Randykitty (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * which Wikipedia policies do you invoke to support your argument? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC).

Added paragraph on contributions to science and technology policy, including her role (with a named citation of her work on the government page) in adoption of Dutch national government eScience policy guidelines.Bides time (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC).
 * delete no significant coverage in third party sources, only primary sources. there were a lot of attempts to make it look like there was a lot of sourced content, but patents by people who are supposedly her relatives have no bearing on whether or not she is notable. the "prize" has not reached any level of prestigious-ness. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  04:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I do not see any notability with this person, the article talks about what her grandparents did that was so great. This seems to be included just to make the article a little longer. VViking Talk Edits 21:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * On a side note I find it interesting that the only people supporting this article are Bides Time. An IP who has made a total of 2 edits, both on this page. ColoradoNaturalit who has made a total of one edit, which is on this page. Finally there is Steven Cronin who last edited was in 2010 before coming into this discussion. Not saying there is something fishy going on, okay I am, but that is up to the rest of the editors here to decide. VViking Talk Edits 21:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly why I put the meatpuppet notice at the top of the page. :) OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Don't see enough non-trivial coverage in 3rd party RSs. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Coming in, I expected to say "keep" because of the extensive reliable sources in the References section, but most of them don't mention her at all, and the exceptions barely touch on her.  Only her academia.edu profile and a Kent State news release provide anything beyond that, and those by themselves are nowhere near sufficient.  Nyttend (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The keep arguments seems to be a-she is a fellow of a society, but that society allows virtually anyone studying the subject to join, and b-she won second prize in a specific category, in a competition that we do not have an article on. Maybe we should have an article on the competition, but I think at this point we are putting the horse before the cart with this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Actually there is an article about the award in Wikipedia Federal_Virtual_World_Challenge — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bides time (talk • contribs) 00:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Why so there is. You put it there. Smells pretty WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT to me. Fiddle   Faddle  09:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per and : insufficient coverage in independent reliable sources, and the prize is not significant enough to prove the subject notable in the absence of such coverage. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete with extreme prejudice Drive by references and non references to try to make this entirely non notable person pass over the bar. Not even a good attempt. Most references(!) fail validation. Those that mention her do just that, mention her. I recommend salt, too, since this type of article spoofing someone into Wikipedia has a habit of repeating like a bad meal. Fiddle   Faddle  00:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:TOOSOON, at best. Apparent COI resume-cum-article. Directory listings do not establish notability, and salting may not be a bad idea in this case.  Mini  apolis  00:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:NOTRESUME. This person has done nothing to garner coverage by reliable sources, which is what our notability guide calls for. Tarc (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per our notability and verifiability standards. Actually, this is a pretty remarkable article: it's clearly written to resemble a normal article and at a two-second glance even looks notable, but on examination there's nothing there.  The references I looked at didn't even mention her.  It's like the Wikipedia equivalent of those fake towns the army builds out in the desert to test nukes on: the structure is all intact but there's nothing there. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  03:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - No evidence of this person satisfying our notability guidelines, and the appearance of meat/sockpuppets is almost always a tell-tale sign that notability is marginal at best. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 11:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per the comments by every single solitary experienced editor here, especially Lukeno94.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even her Google scholar profile is padded with other people's publications (including an 1894 novel). Without them her h-index is 1. Far below WP:PROF standards. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is an eye-opening discovery. I have not come across anything as blatant as this before. I raise the possibility that the BLP (and the GS profile) could have been constructed by an enemy of the subject with the intention of discrediting her. In any case - delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2014 (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.