Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veronica Johnson


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Veronica Johnson

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

One good source in in The Lily, rest are simply announcements of her changing jobs or confirmation that she works at a company. Nothing found for BEFORE that we can use for GNG, She's a member of various professional associations, which don't confer notability (being a member doesn't, if she was one of the higher up functionaries, perhaps...). Simply a person doing their job. Oaktree b (talk) 04:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: Relisting. This is a fascinating discussion about membership in academic societies. But how does that influence your opinion on whether or not this article should be Kept or Deleted? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The question would be whether being named a fellow of the American Meteorological Society confers notability. I'm not convinced it is the kind of WP:NPROF #3 "highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association ... which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor" but am happy to be shown otherwise. The Emmy Award originally included is actually a far less prestigious honor of "Silver circle inductee" of the National Capital Chesapeake Bay Chapter of the National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences. This is a good example of why it might be helpful to include a brief note in the edit summary upon article creation of which notability criteria is met. Thanks Melcous (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Everywhere I read yesterday implied AMS Fellowship was a highly selective honour. There are not many (https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/about-ams/ams-organization-and-administration/list-of-fellows/) in the history of the society. Admittedly, the rest of the coverage is insufficient.Jesswade88 (talk) 05:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - For academics, I consider a fellow of the American Meteorological Society notable, and I have written some pages on that group. For Johnson, this is an interesting question because she's not really an academic, so the use of fellow as a criteria for notability is not as clear cut. In terms of the numbers, as of 2021, AMS has 11,161 members (annual reports are available here ), and 1296 fellows . so about 10% are fellows. However, the fellows' also includes people who are deceased so my percent calculation is a little off. DaffodilOcean (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * My impression would be that for fellowship in an association to qualify for C3 it would need to be strictly reserved for academics, otherwise it's not an endorsement of the subject's scholarly impact/impact as a scholar. It seems AMS draws membership from "public, private, and academic sectors" and recognizes many non-academic factors when awarding fellowship, including "Service to the AMS", "Participation in the CCM/CBM program", "Significant efforts in promoting diversity, equity and inclusion across the enterprise", and "Outstanding citizenry: Public outreach; contributions to science and public policy". Many other selective academic societies also consider these aspects important or even critical to fellowship, but they are also restricted to academic researchers/professor-level educators rather than people involved in the field in more administrative or outreach positions that don't require doctoral degrees. Now, whether the recognition could also qualify for ANYBIO is another question. JoelleJay (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain whether or not the American Meteorological Society is the kind of society covered by WP:NPROF C3. However, the IEEE certainly is such a society.  And doesn't the IEEE also recognize people working in industry?  OTOH, the contributions to practice/theory are usually a bit more apparent from IEEE fellows than what I can see from the subject here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I definitely think someone in industry can have academic notability, but as you note, with IEEE fellows the scholarly impact is more direct--I wouldn't be surprised if all of them have multiple publications. Looking at the first 28 fellows [Aa–Ab] on IEEEXplore, all have PhDs, including one with an MD/PhD and one with two PhDs; all of them also have 15+ papers. In my opinion, being a fellow in a major academic society, even a selective one, shouldn't be a C3 pass if the criteria for fellowship do not require academic contributions. JoelleJay (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What, not even the National Academy of Engineering?? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:01, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see how a membership path that does not emphasize academic impact should warrant its recipients an automatic wikipedia article premised on academic impact. Maybe an ANYBIO pass, if the honor is truly esteemed, but I thought the whole point of NPROF was to recognize people with exemplary scholarly contributions. If that's not the case then how is meeting a non-academic membership criterion any different from someone in a non-academic field being honored within their industry? JoelleJay (talk) 03:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would describe part of our process of evaluating claims of WP:NPROF C5 (named professorship) as being to evaluate whether the subject has a credible-if-tenuous chance at C1 (or possibly in some cases C4/C7). Often, but not always, the case is clear, and in these cases the evaluation may be rather quick.  While I think that we should give academic societies considerably more deference than we do university departments, I think that a similar process might apply in certain cases to WP:NPROF C3.  In the current case, I'm concerned that I'm not seeing any sign at all of C1 or C4, while the claim to C7 looks very weak at best.  Now, I did not succeed in finding a citation statement ("Johnson was inducted as an Amer. Met. Soc. fellow because of her contributions to ___") -- while not strictly necessary, such a statement might help us gain clarity in a case such as this one. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep. Passes criteria 4 of WP:NJOURNALIST and criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO for being inducted into the Silver Circle of the National Capital Emmys which is a significant career achievement award given to television journalists by the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.4meter4 (talk) 17:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The "Silver Circle of the National Capital Emmys" isn't even close to being a well-known and significant award or honor. Even the "Gold Circle" wouldn't be sufficient for ANYBIO, as these are non-notable honors from a non-notable NATAS regional chapter. JoelleJay (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete . After thinking it over, I don't believe this person passes any of our NPROF criteria, and certainly not GNG/ANYBIO. JoelleJay (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * EDIT: Weak keep per finding two BASIC sources, with the same caveats mentioned by Russ. JoelleJay (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. The conversation about notability and academic societies has been interesting to follow. In the interim, I have added multiple source to the article and I think the top two sources are a three-page article on her from a 1998 article in the Baltimore Sun, and the 2017 article in the Washington Post about women and news casting. When you combine this with the American Meteorological Society fellow honor, and the sustained coverage of her over the years, this add up to keep in my mind. DaffodilOcean (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per DaffodilOcean Suryabeej      ⋠talk⋡    09:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. We've got a meet of WP:BASIC identified by, although partly by human interest stories of the sort that WP:RSEDITORIAL warns against.  This is shored up by the Amer Met Soc fellowship (although I do not take that as a pass of WP:NPROF, at least not by itself) and (less) by the mid-career awards identified by . Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:53, 29 October 2022 (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.