Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shoshana Ronen


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Shoshana Ronen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Zigzig20s with the rather unhelpful following rationale "I "otherwise" object.". Well, I already stated my arguments: this person does not seem to meet WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. Comments? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Piotrus, as a side note, why don't you try to improve/expand articles instead of deleting them? You may have a point with this one, seen as it's a stub, but this deletionist pattern has a chilling effect.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Zigzig20s: because having created several thousand of articles, those days I am distressed by the flood of spam we are dawning in. See WP:CORPSPAM for an Op-Ed I wrote on this. If I can create a chilling effect for spam... that would be great. Sadly, I don't believe my efforts are putting much of a dent in the spammers campaign to dilute our content with their vanity/PR content. But I try my best - as much as I'd love to go back to content creation. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think a philosopher is "spam". The way I see it, we'd need to flesh out what her philosophical ideas/contributions are, and thus add to the "the sum of all human knowledge". I would highly encourage you to make yourself happy and refocus on content creation!Zigzig20s (talk) 08:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a spam in the meaning of failing WP:NBIO, through I certainly would see it as a much better "spam" than entry for some company. But the bottom line is - not all philosophers are notable. If you want to talk about her as a researcher, you have to show how she meets WP:PROF. Just working at a university and publishing a few books or articles which have had negligible impact is not enough to make it to an encyclopedia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * She publishes in Polish and you speak Polish apparently. Why don't you try to expand her article instead of deleting it? My fear is that you're not just creating a chilling effect on spam, but on content creation as a whole. Please stop, and try to expand/improve articles!Zigzig20s (talk) 09:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Expand with what? There are no sources about her, Polish or otherwise. What am I supposed to write about her? That she exists? That is already in the article, and this is not sufficient to be in an encyclopedia. Find me a better source and I'll reconsider. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  09:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There are matches on JSTOR for example. In Polish, could you not find more articles in the press or academic reviews of her books?Zigzig20s (talk) 09:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Matches, well, two (good finds though). Her 2015 article is not cited by anyone (but it is just a years old, so I can't criticize her for that). But the only other thing I see here is a 3 page edited volume introduction. I can't find her in Polish scientist database. I can't find her CV. I am sorry, but as a scholar she fails WP:PROF by a long-shot, and I were to say anything good it is that she has published one article with potential (her 2015), and maybe if she keeps it up and publishes in better venues she will be notable in few years. At best it is WP:TOOSOON. If the creator would like to, we could userfy the article, through sadly they don't seem to want to participate in this discussion so far. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 00:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as nothing here for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF, nothing else better otherwise. SwisterTwister   talk
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. Spam floods and chilling affects aside, this sort of academic stub that lists just positions and a few publications, without even any honors to validate the subject's accomplishments, adds too little value to the encyclopedia to make it worth fighting to keep it. The Polish version is better, with several specific claims (directs a department, specializes in some research topics, advocates for liberal Judaism) but still doesn't provide convincing evidence of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Tiny cites on GS. Far WP:Too soon.Xxanthippe (talk) 03:39, 11 November 2016 (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.