Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faye McMillan

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Canley (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Faye McMillan

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Faye McMillan (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)

Not notable. WP:PROF is not yet met--as the article didn't list any of her published work, I added her most cited paper (19 times in Google Scholar). The next highest is 4 times). Notability otherwise would have to be based upon a number of announcements of non-notable awards, and I don't think that meets GNG. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not remotely a pass of WP:Prof#C1 on basis of citations in GS. I don't see enough yet for WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG. I have added sources, which now range from 2003 - 2019, and include the Australian Journal of Pharmacy, Deadly Vibe, The Koori Mail, Dubbo Photo News, Triple M, Western Magazine, and Narromine News. At least four of them are SIGCOV. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She doesn't appear to pass WP:PROF, but the sources now in the article cover her in-depth, appear to be at a national level rather than purely local, and are from a wide enough range of years to show that it's not just for the new AWY award. So I think she passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All other things being equal, I'd be inclined to say "delete". But we cannot tolerate the out-of-control and institutionally sexist arrangements that hold professional athletes (mostly male) to manifestly lower inclusion standards than academics (a more gender-balanced profession). There's at least an argument here that the subject of the article meets the GNG. It's not a great argument. I have qualms about the reliability of trade magazines such as the Australian Pharmacy Journal and local news papers doing puff pieces. But the article is in good shape thanks to the good work of experienced editors, and the subject of the article is clearly a highly accomplished individual who can make multiple claims of notability, and the article is sufficiently verified, so I am happy to have the article. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you actually saying that because the consensus is to have a low standard of notability in one field, we should have it in other fields also?
(as for equity, there has been quite a flood of barely notable female athletes also. ) DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not saying that. Ideally we would lift the standard of notability for athletes. It's absurd that merely being a professional athlete is usually sufficient for notability. But being a professional academic, or a professional artist, or a professional nurse, quite correctly, isn't. In the meantime, the next best thing to do is to say that if the case for an academic is marginal, male or female, I'll incline towards keep. Here WP:PROF isn't met, but WP:GNG is at least arguable, and the article is ok, so I'm comfortable with keeping it. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Faye_McMillan&oldid=907762367"