Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zelma Maine-Jackson


 * 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 no consensus . Academic Challenger (talk) 21:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Zelma Maine-Jackson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Described as a scientist, but notability by any of the points in WP:NACADEMIC is highly dubious. A single portrayal in a local radio channel does not suffice for WP:SIGCOV either. bender235 (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. No pass of WP:Prof. Mentions in media not enough for WP:GNG so WP:Too soon at present. Clearly an admirable person but Wikipedia notability not there yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC).
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment to the creator of the BLP: It might be best if you go first for the low-hanging fruit i.e. those cases where notability is rock-solid so there is no need for a discussion that could cause discomfort to the subject. Also, you might consider as a courtesy asking for the consent of persons about whom you write (although this is not required by Wikipedia policy). Xxanthippe (talk) 07:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC).
 * To follow up on that suggestion, if anyone reading this AfD happens to be particularly interested in creating articles about female hydrogeologists with less likelihood of pushback, then there are a number of Fellows of the Geological Society of America in the Hydrogeology Division who are presumably notable through WP:PROF but appear not to have articles: Sarah L. Lewis, Laura K. Lautz, Dorothy J. Vesper, Alicia Wilson (hydrogeologist), Gwendolyn Macpherson, Susan Swanson, Michelle M. Lorah, Maureen A. Muldoon, Martha S. Phanikumar, Margaret Eggers, Karen Johannesson, Margaret A. Townsend, Richelle M. Allen-King, Laurel B. Goodwin, Madeline E. Schreiber, Laura J. Crossey, Elizabeth J. Screaton, Anne E. Carey, Isabelle M. Cozzarelli, Eileen P. Poeter, Laura Toran, and Carol M. Wicks. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. For background on where the article comes from: it appears that there's a USA Today story about the MissingSciFaces twitter feed.  The featured tweet on the story appears to be about the subject here, with the tagline "She should have a Wikipedia page!" It'd be a bit strange to be notable for not having had a Wikipedia page.  I don't see evidence of  WP:NPROF (34 cites for top-cited pub, trailing off quickly after that), and the other coverage consists of a blog and a local news piece. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. She appears not to be an academic or research scientist at all, so judging her by WP:PROF is inappropriate. Instead, the relevant notability criterion for someone like her should be WP:GNG, which demands multiple sources that are independent of her, in-depth, and reliably published. The story by the Nature Conservancy appears to be in-depth, but non-independent because she's a trustee. On the other hand, the Scientific American and Northwest Public Broadcasting stories do seem to be in-depth and independent, giving her the minimum for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment for clarity that the Scientific American piece is not from the main publication, but from an affiliated blog published under a pseudonym. WP:NEWSBLOG suggests it is usable as a source, but with caution. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per . XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. The "Daughter of Hanford" award qualifies her for this category "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". I just added many more citations to the page including another newspaper article for additional independent sources.MethanoJen (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * could you please explain what kind of award "Daughter of Hanford" is? What group of people and/or academic discipline is it limited to, if any? How long did it exist, how often is it awarded, and who won it in the past? Do any of those past awardees have Wikipedia biographies? --bender235 (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Membership on a National Academy panel and authorship of numerous National Academy reports qualifies her under "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline". Pcgr1ff1th (talk) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Pcgr1ff1th (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
 * Delete Where the heck did you get the idea that Daughter of Hanford is an award or honor, much less that it's "well-known and significant" lololol??? The citation is about a series of profiles of women who worked on the Hanford site, not something that bestows automatic notability., membership on a board is not the same as being an elected member, and merely co-authoring reports does not mean these reports had "significant impact"! Reywas92Talk 23:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Correction: Her status of a co-author of these reports is not clear, nor is their "significant impact"! I removed seven citations that noted her as a member of the Board an Earth Sciences but not that she actually wrote them. notes over 50 people on the relevant boards publishing this report; only one of the other 14 on her board has an article. Reywas92Talk 23:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Your talk page states "Be Polite". Your statement above in which I was tagged is anything but polite. MethanoJen (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I trust other editors will recognize the comment by as gratuitous and ad hominem. Yes, I know the difference between being a Fellow of the National Academy and serving on a board, a position that is only offered to persons of established expertise. Nat Academy reports are solicited as advisory documents and by definition are high impact:  "The Board on Earth Sciences and Resources was established in 1988 to provide a focal point for activities related to Earth science policy. Through its committees, panels, and working groups, it oversees a wide range of Earth science issues, including research, the environment, natural hazards, resources, geographic science and geospatial information, and data and education. It also provides guidance on U.S. participation in international Earth science programs." Pcgr1ff1th (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You have no idea what ad hominem means if you think that is it. I know nothing about you, and commented only on the argument, not the person making it. It was downright false to say she has "authorship of numerous National Academy reports" because she did not write these reports. Even if this hydrogeologist was writing reports on coal mine dust exposure, nothing can be "by definition" high impact, which would entail newly discovered information with content citing it and demonstrating how it affected the discipline, not just being "Proceedings of a Workshop". Reywas92Talk 18:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep As per what said. Seems not to be an academic, but has had a bit of media coverage. Kj cheetham (talk) 08:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * no concerns about the Scientific American report actually being a blog post, as pointed out? --bender235 (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * My position is that blogs that come under the imprimatur of a major magazine, as this one does, are not significantly different in reliability than regular columns in the magazine — both likely subject to sufficient editorial control. They may differ from the print-edition columns in how widely-read they are, but that's also true of columns in one magazine vs columns in a different magazine. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't doubt the reliability of the material either, but isn't it usually the lack of notability that leads to certain material being relegated to an affiliated blog rather than the "main" magazine/website? --bender235 (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In this question, you appear to be using "notability" in a different sense than the sense used in Wikipedia deletion discussions, which refers to the passage of certain specific Wikipedia notability criteria. I am certain that Scientific American does not refer to Wikipedia notability criteria in determining which columns to include in its print edition and which to relegate to blogs. I am also confident that its decisions about the significance (not notability) of certain columns relative to each other is based other criteria than the significance of the individual topics covered in specific instances of those columns. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right, I was using notability in the general sense of the word. Maybe I'm wrong, but blog posts seem to be "all the news that wasn't fit to print." Again, I'm not saying that makes it unreliable (where here I mean our WP:RS), just that we're stretching WP:GNG very far. --bender235 (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Where in GNG does it say anything about taking into account tea-leaf-readings of the publication's opinion of the significance of the column in which the source article appeared? Or even direct statements of opinion of the significance of the subject herself? GNG is purely about the existence and reliability of sources, not about significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * True, but GNG's "reliable sources" clause refers to our WP:RS corpus of guidelines, which includes provisions on news blogs and human-interest pieces, for instance. Again, I'm not saying these sources are untrustworthy, just that we should be cautious when using them to establish notability. --bender235 (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete After further thought and especially after what ProcrastinatingReader added, I'm changing my vote. Kj cheetham (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. There may have been canvassing on Twitter relating to this AfD. This Afd should be closed by an experienced administrator, not with a non-admin closure. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC).
 * Delete: This is a rather on-the-fence one. The arguments made by David Eppstein and bender235 leave me somewhere in the middle. I think David Eppstein's argument has been stronger on matter of policy, but I'm still not convinced WP:GNG is met. The Scientific American post about her is certainly part of a blog, and though I lack familiarity with this magazine's structure, I don't believe she works for the magazine itself; she only blogs there. Here is her about page on the blog. I believe this scenario falls under WP:NEWSBLOG which states Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online columns they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.
 * Narrowing this down further to get a clearer guideline is more difficult. Identifying_reliable_sources_(science) suggests Personal or group blogs from prominent scientists writing in their field of expertise may be usable when properly attributed. Nature Blogs, ScienceBlogs, and Discover blogs host many such experts.
 * The archives for WP:V discuss the suitability of news blogs more generally, not just in the science field. A previous discussion on the issue suggested that the writer's credentials as a subject-matter expert, as evaluated under WP:SPS, may be helpful in determining how much weight to give to the source. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.
 * Looking into Dana Hunter, the writer of the post, it appears she is mostly a hobbyist with a passion for geology. She is not employed by Scientific American, from the looks of it, and only maintains a blog there. Combined with some more digging on her, I do not believe she classes as a subject-matter expert, for the purposes of WP:SPS. Applying the reasoning from the WP:V archives, I would thus say that the article should not receive the same amount of weight, and I would say the difference is relevant in this AfD.
 * Hence, WP:GNG has not been met, in my opinion. We do not have multiple reliable, independent secondary sources to show that this individual meets the notability criteria, yet. I would like to echo the words of David Eppstein, in conclusion, by noting that there are multiple individuals in this area who are more likely to meet the relevant criteria, and I'd encourage the creator of this article (and others with interest) to consider looking into creating content for those. It's certainly an underserved area and I think this encyclopedia would certainly benefit from more articles here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2020 (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.