Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanlie James

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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Stanlie James

Stanlie James (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not meet WP:GNG and fails in particular on the areas of "significant coverage," "reliable," "independent coverage," and "independent of subject." There is no sourcing at all. There is nothing to indicate the subject of the article has any standing in her field. There is no reporting of her accomplishments other than an unsourced list of publications. There is no comment on the value of the publications, assuming they are real. This could be a case of WP:SPIP as perhaps it's intended to be her online CV (I'm not accusing the subject...someone else could have done it). She appears to be an academic, on whom the world has not commented. That does not, in itself, merit a biography. Even as a WP:NPF, the article will still need more sourcing and external commentary on her. GetSomeUtah (talk) 11:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Keep: It seems to me that, even as the article is now (as opposed to when this was nominated for deletion in good faith), it satisfies WP:NPF. The references to her work in King, Deborah K. (2010) and Barnes, Marian (2005) are both in books published by reputable academic publishers, and can be checked online. The same seems to be true of the Pedwell, Carolyn (2010) citation as it's published by a reputable academic publisher, (though it may not be checkable online). And this is quite likely only the tip of the iceberg since googling "Stanlie James" (in quotes) gives 10,400 general results and 4,100 book results. This also makes accusations of possible self-promotion (WP:SPIP) seem pretty implausible - with that many books available she could presumably manage far more than just the 3 independent citations she has now (and the none she had at the time of nomination) if she were promoting herself. And the article was originally created, and has now been greatly improved, by one of our most experienced editors (SarahSV), who has won two Million Awards, (one of them for bringing Female genital mutilation up to WP:Featured Article standard, so she presumably is well qualified to judge on the notability of the author of Genital Cutting and Transnational Sisterhood (2010)), as well as again making accusations of possible self-promotion utterly implausible. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. The "keep" argument here seems to be that her work has been cited a few times (but there are probably many more citations) and that the article was written by a good editor. Agricola44 (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC).

• The 'good editor' bit is mostly there to try to show the implausibility of the WP:SPIP part of the nomination. (Incidentally she is not just a good editor - in this particular field she is demonstrably a uniquely good editor, which is arguably somewhat relevant to what follows). But, apart from the SPIP aspect, the judgment of an experienced editor who is demonstrably expert in the relevant field may also be at least partly relevant to assessing the notability of the subject of an article, especially if it is under-developed. For example, a sufficient criterion for notability in WP:AUTHOR is "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." The "or" means that "The person is regarded as an important figure" is sufficient for notability. But most of us have no real way of knowing whether James is regarded as important in some field or not, and in that case we may have to rely to some extent on the judgment of those who demonstrably have expert knowledge of that field, and in that sense SarahSV's judgment seems relevant, at least to me (and justified by me per WP:IAR if necessary).
• I did not say 'probably' many more citations, I said 'quite likely' (although this may be an understatement by me, given the 4100 Google Books hits). This seems relevant per WP:ARTN and WP:NEXIST because the article seems under-developed - all its best bits were added in a last-minute rush (partly for reasons already mentioned in my much criticized comment below).
• That said, I have felt forced to spend more time on this than I feel I can reasonably afford, so I will probably (or should that be hopefully?) not be saying any more on the subject.
• Regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Also, as WP:BIAS tells us, being female and black probably means that Stanlie James's article is in practice liable to get far less work done on it than if she were male and white, and consequently makes it far more likely to be nominated for deletion, thus forcing female and black editors to drop what they are currently working on to rush to try to fix the problem, an exhausting process that presumably leads to such already under-represented editors being more likely to quit, thus further aggravating Wikipedia's Systemic Bias problem. Needless to add this is liable to then be made even worse if their efforts then prove to be wasted because the article gets deleted anyway.Tlhslobus (talk) 04:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. This type of speculation is completely irrelevant to the conversation here. Agricola44 (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• 1) I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned what I said was and remains 100% relevant. I was and am merely trying to describe an aspect of this nomination and vote, and of many other similar nominations and votes, which tends to be damaging to Wikipedia.
• 2) It damages us in terms of editor retention as per our WP:WER project, in terms of Gender Gap (which damages our editor retention, and the quality of our subject coverage, and our reputation) as per our WP:GGTF project, and it presumably has similar effects in terms of minority participation as well (though I'm not aware of which of our projects, if any, specifically deals with that). I am well aware that the damaging effect of such deletions has been repeatedly complained about in the GGTF and elsewhere (though if someone wants explicit documentation on that I would probably first want to consult somebody a lot more expert than me).
• 3) These are matters which I honestly think people need to be aware of and need to take into account when voting, perhaps also when trying to assess whether there is a consensus, and perhaps also when making future nominations (this nomination has already been made, in good faith, as already mentioned, so I'm not really concerned about it, as that would be shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted).

• 3b) This is probably especially important if people are uncertain about what they should do, as I'm not suggesting these considerations should automatically outweigh all other considerations.

• 4) Incidentally, please note that much of what I wrote above was not in any way 'speculation', but had already happened before I wrote my comment (as a look at the nominated article's edit history will quickly confirm).
• 5) I am not aware of any rule which says these seemingly entirely relevant matters should not be brought up in an Afd, nor taken into consideration there, but if such a rule exists I think I am obliged to ignore it in Wikipedia's interest per WP:IAR and per the related 5th of Wikipedia's 5 Pillars (WP:5P5). These are both completely opposed to any notion that we should somehow blindly follow some rules or traditions regardless of how much damage this may do to Wikipedia in practice.
• 6) Regards. Tlhslobus (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. The subject is a longtime academic and this is one of those cases for which the details have to be checked closely, I think. First, GS citations look good, but there's some double-counting. For example, the two top hits are to the same source, one being to a book she helped edit and one being to a chapter in that book she wrote. This duplication is repeated at least an additional 5 times, if one looks through the GS listing – it is unclear how independent these are of one another. However, if considered as one contribution, her GS h-index would be around 7. She has also written many journal articles, but WoS shows all of them to be cited only in the low single digits or in journals that are not indexed. She has helped edit 2 books and WorldCat shows pretty good holdings (760 for the book just mentioned, and 620 for another book). This is probably the strongest argument for notability, however edited volumes are problematic in terms of assigning notability. For example, the first book (with >700 holdings) has 17 contributors who wrote articles. The subject has written several books on her own, but WorldCat shows single-digit holdings of these. Overall, a detailed look suggests this person has not had impact demonstrably above the "average professor" level. Agricola44 (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
• Keep as WP:AUTHOR. The three books listed are widely held, with the top books in 700+ libraries: Worldcat Identities. The article is sufficiently well sourced at the moment and establishes stand-alone notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• Comment from the nominator. I appreciate that the article has been improved since I nominated it. But it remains a straightforward listing of CV-type data, solely drawing on the works of the subject herself. The subject fails all four criteria of WP:AUTHOR: no evidence of being "widely cited by peers," no evidence of "originating a significant new concept," no "well-known work or collective body of work," and has "not won significant critical attention." Just listing the subject's books and saying they sit on library shelves doesn't do it. I don't think I have to remind people that we need people other than the subject herself commenting on these things -- none of that is in the article. I greatly respect the article's creator, SarahSV, and find it somewhat off-putting that other editors are implying the author is above the WP:GNG process and that her many awards somehow tilt the scales on the issue of Ms. James. Such assertions reinforce the notion that Wikipedia is a clique of insiders and continues to harm efforts to retain editors. The not-veiled-at-all commentary by Tlhslobus about the nature of the nomination is doubly offensive given my background. I would hope we could return to focusing on the substance of the article, rather than the creator and the nominator, and when one does that one sees that the article subject still lacks any mention of "significant coverage," nothing "reliable," no "independent coverage," and nothing "independent of subject." GetSomeUtah (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry if anything I said offended you, though I'm not entirely clear precisely which part or parts of the complained-of comment (if that is what you mean by 'commentary') offended you (and I'm not sure that I really want to know either), as it was not and is not in any way intended to be directed at you personally. On the contrary, in my Keep vote, I explicitly said you had made a good faith nomination. My comment was merely trying to describe an aspect of this nomination and vote, and of many other similar nominations and votes, which tends to be damaging to Wikipedia, and which I honestly think needs to be taken into account in our present and future decisions, as explained in more detail above. (Incidentally, since you brought it up, I know nothing of your background, as it was and is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make, and if I had been trying to make insinuations about you (which I wasn't), this would have been wrong of me regardless of your background). Or if you are objecting to my mention of SarahSV, I'm afraid this honestly seemed unavoidable to me once your nomination stated "This could be a case of WP:SPIP as perhaps it's intended to be her online CV." (It may also be relevant to notability, as I have now argued at length above). Meanwhile I would ask you to please try to assume good faith per WP:AGF, and to please try to refrain from making any further unwitting personal attacks on me per WP:NPA (Please note, as indicated by the word 'unwitting', that I fully accept that it was not your intention to make a personal attack). Regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. meets both WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR; a "straight listing of CV type data" when the CV data indicates the elements of notability , is entirely appropriate for an academic bio. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. The article seems to meet WP:PROF, and it can be developed. She has done some interesting work on families and on FGM, which can be expanded because secondary sources discuss it. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. Now passes WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. Edwardx (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
• Weak Keep does meet WP:NOTE, but still currently reads too much like a cover letter, or resume instead from a neutral point of view. Should be overhauled to read in a more encyclopedic fashion and tone of voice. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2017 (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.