Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda DeLibero

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 delete. Despite impassioned opinions to keep this page the policy-based arguments are firmly in favor of deletion. J04n(talk page) 01:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Linda DeLibero

Linda DeLibero (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)

Non-notable individual lacking GHITs and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- mostly per WP:PROF#C7 -- subject is treated as an expert about films and film studies in many significant film fora. In addition she holds the top academic position in a significant program at a top institution -- that in itself is not enough to satisfy WP:PROF, but with the C7 support, I believe it does pass the Average Professor Test with room to spare. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- for reasons above; she holds the top academic position in a significant program at a top institution. Much of her work is archived in ways that does not lend itself for internet searching but she has published film reviews and commentaries for 15 years. http://www.unz.org/Author/DeLiberoLinda DeLibero, Linda. "< i> English Filming, English Writing(review)." The Hopkins Review 4.1 (2011): 138-141.Critic11 (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ADDENDUM: Subject's Education background verified here. And here is a partial list of Newsday film reviews and articles going back to the 1990s.

IDEAS / "Summer Movies Come Steeped in Contempt": [ALL EDITIONS]Linda DeLibero. Linda DeLibero is the film critic for the biweekly magazine In These Times.. Newsday, Combined editions [Long Island, N.Y] 29 June 1997: G.06.

IDEAS / "Great Explosions AND Small Expectations:" [NASSAU AND SUFFOLK Edition]Linda DeLibero. Linda DeLibero teaches writing at Johns Hopkins University and is a regular movie critic for In These Times magazine.. Newsday, Combined editions [Long Island, N.Y] 21 July 1996: A.38.

CULTURE WATCH / "Summer Movies Are Locked in the Comfort Zone": [ALL EDITIONS]Linda DeLibero. Linda DeLibero is a freelance writer based in Baltimore.. Newsday, Combined editions [Long Island, N.Y] 19 July 1998: B06.

LETTER FROM BALTIMORE / "Of Sporting Morality Plays and Urban Decay:" [NASSAU AND SUFFOLK Edition]Linda DeLibero. Linda DeLibero is a freelance writer based in Baltimore.. Newsday, Combined editions [Long Island, N.Y] 13 Oct 1996: A.54.

IDEAS / "Epidemic of Irony: A Cold View of the World "/ `To place the action of ``Primary Colors on higher moral ground would cut readers out form the illusion that they're in on the joke: [NASSAU AND SUFFOLK Edition]Linda DeLibero. Linda DeLibero is a film critic for the biweekly political magazine In These Times and teaches cultural criticism at Johns Hopkins University.. Newsday, Combined editions [Long Island, N.Y] 17 Mar 1996: A.44.

CULTURE WATCH / "Looking at Oscar Night With That Sinking Feeling" [ALL EDITIONS]DeLibero, Linda. Newsday, Combined editions [Long Island, N.Y] 22 Mar 1998: B06.

"Pop Goes the Weasel: The Larry Flynt Revival / Why have pundits and critics hailed the biopic of a thuggish pornographer as a blow for freedom?: [NASSAU AND SUFFOLK Edition]Linda DeLibero. Linda DeLibero is the film critic for the biweekly political magazine In These Times.. Newsday, Combined editions [Long Island, N.Y] 05 Jan 1997: A.36.

  • Keep -- DeLibero is Director, promoted last month. Websites lag. She is notable Fatpedro (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
— Fatpedro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
While this contribution may have been Fatpedro's first contribution as a registered editor, xe has gone on to contribute in other areas related to the coverage of women (specifically women authors) at Wikipedia. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]
I don't think that's particularly relevant to this AfD. First account edits on AfDs are usually socks, especially when posts show obvious insider knowledge on the subject, as is certainly the case here (i.e. DeLibero was promoted last month). Agricola44 (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
HELLO! Isn't there something about Good Faith you are supposed to assume? Critic11 (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You evidently have not read WP:FAITH2, as I respectfully suggested and you appear to be unable to distinguish what you perceive as a personal agenda versus what is really actually just logical argument based on WP policies. Once a debate gets to this point (i.e. special pleading, AGF disruption, ad hom attacks, and such), it is usually a very good sign that all the information/sources that actually exist have already been found – which in this case is very little. You were able to get this article relisted after the original AfD ended in delete and I think all this will have accomplished in the end is for all of us to have spent another week to arrive at the same result. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep -- The comments of Agricola44 are not valid. Clearly Agricola44 has a bias against this subject. Indeed I know the subject's work; I am a Harvard grad and Stanford prof and I have read her work for years. She is a substantial contributor to the cultural discourse. Yes I am a new editor, provoked to edit based on the accusations that Wikipedia is anti-women and I am seeing first hand that it is true. I would like to report the actions of Agricola44 and others who do not understand academic websites or how information from the pre-internet age is archived. Highbeam research does not capture non-digital archived writings. This debate should continue until others (who are indeed working to bring things online per Wikipedia's rules) finish. But the bad faith here is astonishing. Wikipedia claims it wants the public to edit but now that I've done so, the accusations of bias or "socks"? is ugly and unseemly.Fatpedro (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Your oblique accusation that the panelists here are anti-woman is nonsense and you should cease with this line of argument. There are well-established guidelines for assessing notability that have been used for many hundreds of cases and it is clear that DeLibero does not meet any of them. You're essentially pleading that DeLibero is a special case and that these guidelines do not apply here. This is a gimmick that also has a long, but overwhelmingly unsuccessful history here at AfD. My advice to you would be to find reliable sources that document her expert status, her contributions, or anything such like. Absent that, there's no basis for keeping this article, especially because the person is living. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment Mscuthbert, would you care to elaborate on which fora? Because, as the nom says, citations are unremarkable, and then clicking through to her program's website I discover that she is not the director, but the associate director [1], and that the Program in Film and Media Studies is a strictly undergraduate (teaching) non-research program, without people holding titles like professor, so the prestige of being associated with a research university is undercut, somewhat. RayTalk 16:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Ray, thanks for your insightful questions. I think that doing an introduction for an IFA film is a significant citation in the field (the others might be debated but there were at least four I found), but definitely the many hits for Linda Benn put her over the top. I also wouldn't correlate "strictly undergraduate" with "non-research," particularly in the arts and humanities. I am on the faculty of a strictly undergraduate program and research is by far the most important point we're evaluated on (with several Pulitzers, Macarthurs, Guggenheims, etc. in the department to show for it.) -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, this is a bit embarassing, but I'm not finding these publications. I get at most a publication or two when I go looking in Gscholar, under both names. Could somebody link these for me? I usually pride myself on my ability to find sources when properly pointed, so ... Thanks, RayTalk 21:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- subject has also published as Linda Benn Delibero, which has substantially more GHITS than Linda Delibero, particularly for a fashion article on Twiggy that is cited regularly. Wikipedia's policy on GHITS seems biased against women who marry and change names, IMHO. Balloftwine (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article in question, "This Year's Girl: A Personal/Critical History of Twiggy", has all of five citations in Google scholar. This is far below the usual standard for academic deletions here. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- yes, now that I search under "Linda Benn" I see that she has in fact been publishing for over 30 years -- her first essay, "White Noise" in the Voice Literary Supplement (December 1990) is frequently quoted and cited in subsequent books on Television. I agree that the GHIT standard is biased against people who change their names or use different names at different times in their life (not always women but certainly more frequently). Critic11 (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that Critic11 has posted two !votes.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC) Yes, but my posts are a matter of conversation and responding to your concerns. Website now says Director.Critic11 (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete  I see various WP:OR assertions in this AfD, but WP:V and WP:BLP require that information be verifiable.  These assertions might combine together to be a wp:notable topic of interest to readers, but combining these pieces without sourcing is indistinguishable from a WP:FRANKIE.  For example, the radio station source uses the same name as the university source, but what reliable source ties the two together?  The radio personality is interesting, but we have no article on Serene Branson, who was already well established as a local TV personality on a major TV station before receiving national attention for an on-camera migraine aura episode.  While it is credible that the topic has been promoted and the website lags, the reliable information we have about this topic says "Associate director", equals a low-profile individual.  Where is a reliable newspaper article with a bio that says that the topic has published under two other names?  The unz.org source doesn't appear to do any fact checking.  The words "noted" and "lectures widely" mark the article as failing WP:PROMOTE.  The alleged educational credentials have no inline citation and are useless.  Fails WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:OR and WP:PROMOTE.  If the radio station has posted a bio, I haven't seen it.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - THE UNZ.ORG source is an archive of articles from In These Times. Archives don't generally fact check. I don't know what Serene Branson has anything do to with anything. Not sure what is prejudicing Unscintillating against Subject, who undoubtably has a presence in her community. Critic11 (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, Subject's Education background verified here.
  • WP:Verifiability requires WP:RS (reliable sources).  That new source has a copyright date of 2011 ("© 2011 Johns Hopkins University, Zanvyl Krieger School of Arts and Sciences"), and says that the topic is a director, but the WP:OR above claims that the promotion came within the last month, not in 2011.  There is a sentence fragment and a grammar error ("Linda DeLibero the Director of the Film and Media Studies program at Johns Hopkins University, where she teaches courses on film history and aesthetics, including Hitchcock and Film Theory, Films of the ’70s, The Actor in Hollywood, and Critical Approaches to Contemporary Film." and "Linda DeLibero is regular contributor to WYPR 88.1 in Baltimore, MD.").  This material does not verify the claim in the article that the topic graduated "Magna Cum Laude".  The phrase "published widely" is the same kind of self-serving hyperbole that appears in the current article ("lectures widely" and "noted").  On the plus side, there is a credible assertion that the radio personality and the JHU director are one and the same.  I also did a web search for the reference that states, "James Franco at Hopkins Baltimore Sun March 9, 2012."  This ref turns out to be a photo of three people, the caption of which identifies the topic as a "faculty member".  Unscintillating (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am trying to assume good faith but your hostility ("self-serving hyperbole") is mystifying to me. I have created several pages for scholars, all of whom have "published widely" and are "notable." There is nothing "self serving" about this, particularly when the subject isn't involved. Clearly the subject has been publishing for 30 years and had a change in name for some reason (possibly marriage). The webmaster in her department is not responsible for the "publication date" of a website. Everyone, even scholars, makes grammatical errors. I think you are not in good faith.Critic11 (talk) 13:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unscintillating is arguing points on the article itself, is making no ad-hom attacks, is not questioning your motives, etc. There seems to be no basis for an WP:AGF slap-down here. In fact, it might be good to take a look at WP:FAITH2. Thanks! Agricola44 (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. I think there are, in fact, significant notability issues here. Her publications seem mostly to be short reviews in a single, small-circulation periodical called In These Times, which probably explains lack of GS citations. (There's nothing in WoS.) I found the "English Filming, English Writing", mentioned above, but WorldCat shows this to be held by just 1 institution. The standard academic databases don't show anything else written by her. None of the other sources that mention/discuss her seem to be mainstream publications, e.g. this one is from the campus newspaper of her institution. The article's sources are all either webpages, or text written by the subject. There are some short quotes by her in a few news sources, like The Baltimore Sun, but nothing that could satisfy WP:RS. The "top academic position" argument above goes to WP:PROF #6, but this is also spurious. It is actually quite difficult to discern her position at JHU, since she seems only to have a non-faculty title of "associate director" (i.e. not listed as Professor), but she is certainly not Provost/President/Chancellor, etc. that WP:PROF #6 considers "top academic position". I think Michael Scott Cuthbert makes the strongest argument here, based on WP:PROF #7, but the notes there state "quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark". So, I'm afraid I'm left with the conclusion that her notability status is nothing more than personal assertion at the moment. Agricola44 (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • In These Times and the Village Voice are serious publications, not to be slighted. Subject is clearly faculty (many faculty members to not have the title of "professor" and is the Director of a serious program at a major research university. Her name has appeared in the Baltimore Sun as a Johns Hopkins faculty member for over a decade. The subject regularly appears as an expert on a public radio program. The subject lectures regularly as an expert. The subject's book reviews appear in Bookforum, also a serious publication. If the subject's writings appear in publications that Wikipedia deems notable, is that to be swept aside because she isn't just an "academic" writer at Johns Hopkins? Also Baltimore Magazine refers to subject as Director of Film and Media Studies. Critic11 (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, I'll ask you not to change the text of my comments anymore, not even to link. Your formatting mistake changed the whole tone of my post to make it seem like I was yelling. Second, please get rid of your defensive posture. Third, here's the confusion. All the things you just listed (lecturing "as an expert", publishing, etc.) are the normal activities and fodder of all academics, so, yes, these things do not render her notable per se. The bar is much higher. It must be shown that these works have been significantly noted by others, which can come in various forms, e.g. lots of citations to her work, lots of institutions that hold her books, etc. The trouble is that none of the standard academic databases or mainstream news sources demonstrate that this is the case. It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether In These Times is a "serious publication". What are needed are citations, and those don't seem to be there. So again, your statement that she is commonly known as an expert remains a personal assertion on your part. Agricola44 (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • BTW, her title isn't really that important because she clearly does not qualify under WP:PROF #6. Agricola44 (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • But sweetheart, she isn't a prof. Nobody ever said she was except you. She's the Director of a program. You are holding her to a "citation" standard that is not applicable for some strange reason. Google "Benn Delibero" in Google Scholar and you'll get plenty of hits for her chapter on Twiggy. Critic11 (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is the exact search you specified in GS. As you can see, there are no citations. If I search "Benn Delibero Twiggy", I do get about 10 citations. Is this what you mean by "plenty"? Your remark about holding the subject to a "citation standard" suggests that you don't understand WP:PROF. Delibero is obviously an academic and it seems increasingly clear that, in terms of scholarship, she is a very average one. The "keep" arguments, including yours, all assert recognized expertise and lots of citations, but so far nobody can seem to find these. BTW, best to drop the patronizing language. Thanks! Agricola44 (talk) 02:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • My point is that there are many academics who publish outside of "scholarship." Poets for example. This isn't a tenure committee it's a discussion of notability, and clearly she is known to the Baltimore area public for her radio appearances and lectures, while at the same time running a major film program in a major university. Is Wikipedia not flexible enough to see this?Critic11 (talk) 03:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those folks usually pass on WP:GNG because there are substantive secondary sources about them, which are sufficient proof of notability. That does not appear to be the case here. The property of being a "local celebrity" is not notable per se, nor is running a film program at a university, which again is completely routine academic-type work. It has nothing to do with "flexibility" and everything to do with demonstrating notability according to any of the many WP notability guidelines (WP:WHYN). She might be notable if she has lots of citations to her "Twiggy" article, but neither I nor Ray can find this. Agricola44 (talk) 04:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Agricola44, and he explained my trouble finding serious sources by or about the subject. RayTalk 18:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Agricola44 (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification of Unusual Procedure. AfD was closed by J04n(talk page) and then bot-moved to the archive, after which relisting was both requested and granted. I've restored the listing to the academics-educators board, but there is still some manual cleanup required that I presume will be taken care of by J04n(talk page). Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. It looks clear from the discussion above that she is not a great fit for the academic standards of WP:PROF, and that we should consider her notability as a film critic and public figure instead, per WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. But I am just not seeing the depth of coverage (in Google news archive and Highbeam search results) that would justify a pass on those grounds. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after considering the arguments above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Linda DeLibero holds the top position in a significant program at Johns Hopkins, a respected institution. Like many academics, most of her work is organizing and lecturing. This is clearly the case. She is respected in her field as evidenced by her academic position (JHU must have some reason to have promoted her) and by her public presence in the community. Troutbagel (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC) — Troutbagel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • It's already been established that she does not hold the top position for the purposes of WP:PROF and neither is her academic position notable per se (despite JHU having their reasons for promoting her). Might you please point the panelists here to any reliable, independent sources that furnish proof of notability? Several of us here have scanned the standard venues for such information (journal citation databases, book holdings, news archives, etc) over the past week, but have found close to nothing. Without such sources, all the "keep" testimonials are nothing more than personal assertion. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • A quick search shows that the subject was mentioned in a 2002 New York Times article for her academic contributions ("feminist theorists like Linda Benn Delibero"). To be singled out as a representative expert of an academic field in the "newspaper of record" implies wide public recognition of academic notability and clear fulfillment of WP:PROF #7. This is not "personal assertion." Troutbagel (talk) 17:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is about the mini-skirt and the sum-total of her mention is "feminist theorists like Linda Benn DeLibero, among others, have...", which is the archetypical WP:TRIVIALMENTION. If the article were not about the miniskirt, but instead about Linda Benn DeLibero's opinion/analysis of the miniskirt, then that would be a singling-out as a representative expert and would consequently imply notability. Agricola44 (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • I have requested WP:DR Dispute Resolution on the basis that Agricola44 has been dominating the discussion. It is true that most of the subject's most cited articles are not available online, including "White Noise: The Long, Sad Story of TV Criticism," (1990) in the Voice Literary Supplement 91 because the Voice archive is not online. Neither is the subject's Twiggy essay. But clearly the author of scores of cited works who still actively writing (for outlets like Bookforum) and who is the top academic at major program in a major university is notable, despite the harping of one sole voice: Agricola44. Balloftwine (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're welcome to do that, of course. Although I've been debating article/notability and have not responded to AGF disruption above, I've also been trying, as gently as possible, to correct misunderstandings of policy – speaking of which – there's absolutely no requirement that any of her work be available online. Apologies if it seems I am "harping", but please consider that to be a response to the ongoing assertion (which you have just repeated again) that DeLibero is a "top academic" or holds a "top position", which renders her notable. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • It is indisputable that subject holds the top academic position in the film program at Johns Hopkins, so please stop disputing it. It is Johns Hopkins's business, not Wikipedia, what kind of title she has. For Wikipedia's purposes she holds the Top Position in a Serious Academic Program at a Major University. Please let that go. Critic11 (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think your broad-stroke accusations have been excused up to now because you're a newcomer to AfD, but it's time to stop. You should understand that the guidelines are quite clear that being "top academic in the film program" is not sufficient. As I mentioned above, when the debate reaches this point, we can be almost certain that there is no more substantive material to be found. (Individual radio shows on a local NPR affiliate run by her own institution are now apparently being put-up as sources, see below.) I think the closing admin now has more than enough information to render a verdict. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Not to dwell on what is evidently one citation among many of the subject's work, but to respond to Agricola44: I respectfully disagree that this is the archetypal WP:TRIVIALMENTION. That page provides the example, "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" - where "Three Blind Mice" is obviously trivial. The reference at issue here certainly does not constitute "significant coverage," but it is nevertheless an assessment in the New York Times that says, essentially, "this person is a notable academic." Troutbagel (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)— Troutbagel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
How preposterous is a claim that a statement in the New York Times that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" implies "this person is a notable academic." Xxanthippe (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 00:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 00:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I don't even understand why whether DeLibero is a worthy subject is being debated. SHE IS. She is a well known feminist theorist, as several people have noted. Her renown goes far beyond that of the Average Professor. It seems that some in this discussion are not acquainted with feminist theory so don't really know the field and can't see that the extensive citations of her work, her leadership in a program at a top university, her radio presence as a public intellectual. So this seems to me obvious: KEEP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnellsmith (talk • contribs) 21:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If she is so well known then let's see some significant and reliable sources. The ones found so far are not impressive. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

WP:SOC alert -- I think you are Agricola44 . This is not the first time you have been suspected of being a sock puppet of each other. Critic11 (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What a bizarre claim. When have I been accused of being a sock of Agricola44? Please take your claim to WP:Checkuser. You don't improve your case by making personal attacks on other editors. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC). Uh, go to Agricola44 talk page -- you have "discussed" it so it isn't bizarre, is it. Critic11 (talk) 01:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mathsci/Archive[reply]
As I said, take your claim to WP:Checkuser and when you have got the result refrain from personal attacks on editors who disagree with you. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I've disagreed with Xxanthippe and Agricola44 plenty of times on AfD (and agreed with them more; but those times don't tend to get heated. :-) ), and I disagree with both of them here. But I highly, highly doubt they're sockpuppets of each other Critic11, so please refrain from saying that. They sometimes come to the same conclusions, but tend to use very different evidence and methods in coming to these conclusions; which is why they're very strong proponents of their cause when they agree. I still maintain that WP:PROF does not do a good job for adjudicating positions outside of science and esp. the mainstream arts and sciences. Start with the average professor test: is the average researcher in film studies anywhere close to the head of a Johns Hopkins research program? Do non-notable researchers tend to head programs where named chair faculty are on the committee? It seems that the main argument against comes from her title, which is not professor, but are people voting on those grounds taking into account that many arts programs forbid giving the prof. title to artists and to programs that are considered primarily in the arts? Critic11 has given a very impressive list of film discussion fora that have been organized by respectable media outlets. These things don't get cited the way science research papers do and any attempt to judge them by those criteria is taking the standards of one field and applying them where they never apply (outside of WP). The NYTimes citation of her as a feminist theorist goes beyond trivial mention, because there's no reason she should be cited unless she were considered by them to be notable. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The claim "are not impressive" is an opinion, not a fact. Books and articles are cited above and in the subject's page that refer to the subject's writings, her title, her position, and her public notability in Baltimore. Contradiction is not argument. Every single person here arguing "KEEP" has seen these sources. Where would you like them to be listed so that you will be impressed?Critic11 (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only evidence we have about the topic's wp:notability in Baltimore is two words in a photo with three people that identifies the topic as a "faculty member".  Yes, two words is more than nothing, but as per the nutshell of WP:N, notable topics are, "those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time".  What we need to satisfy WP:GNG is loosely considered to be two "good" articles about the topic, and then you have to face down the deletion lobby who have shown the ability in one case to get an article deleted with more than 60 sources.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC) That is untrue. Look here to see her list of recent appearances on WYPR.Critic11 (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC) In case you don't want to click on the link, here they all are: Linda DeLibero on WYPR (partial list)[reply]

Midday on Film: Friday April 5, 1-2 p.m. Film critics Linda DeLibero and Christopher Llewellyn Reed look back at the career and contributions of the late film critic Rober Ebert, who died this week of cancer at the age of 70. Also, an appreciation of three stars born on April 5 -- Gregory Peck, Bette Davis and Spencer Tracy.

Midday on Film: Friday December 7, 1-2 p.m. From "Anna Karenina" to "Hitchcock" to "Killing Them Softly," a look at the current cinema with Linda DeLibero, associate director of film studies at The Johns Hopkins University, and filmmaker Christopher Llewellyn Reed, chair and associate professor of the Department of Film and Video at Stevenson University.

Is Film Dead: Friday November 2, 1-2 p.m. The digital revolution marks the biggest change in movie-making since the advent of sound, and anyone who loves movies should know what's at stake. This month's edition of Midday on Film: How digital has affected not only movie-making but the viewing experience, with Linda DeLibero, associate director of film studies at The Johns Hopkins University, and filmmaker Christopher Llewellyn Reed, chair and associate professor of the Department of Film and Video at Stevenson University.

Tags: Christopher Llewellyn Reed digital film Film Linda DeLibero Midday Friday February 24, 1 - 2 pm: Midday on Film: Oscars edition The Oscars! With Midday critic Linda DeLibero, associate director of film studies at The Johns Hopkins University.

Friday January 20, 1 - 2 pm: Midday on Film -- China, Sundance, Documentaries, the Oscars, 'Dangerous Method' and "Incredibly Close' It's Midday on Film with Linda DeLibero, director of film and media studies at the Johns Hopkins University. Today, Linda takes us to China for a look at the challenges that independent filmmakers, including documentarians, face in westernized Communism. Meanwhile, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has created a new challenge for filmmakers here: It announced that only documentaries reviewed by The Los Angeles Times or The New York Times will be eligible for Oscar nominations. Dan asks Linda if that new rule is as dumb as it sounds.


Tuesday December 13, 1 - 2 pm: Midday on Film It's Oscar season! The films and actors expected to receive nominations and what an Academy Award campaign looks like. With Linda DeLibero, associate director of film studies at Johns Hopkins University.

Monday September 5, 1 - 2 pm: Midday on Film An appreciation of Bernard Hermann, the acclaimed American composer noted for his Academy Award-winning work in motion pictures, particularly those of Alfred Hitchcock (Psycho, North by Northwest, The Man Who Knew Too Much, and Vertigo). Hermann also composed the music for Citizen Kane, The Ghost and Mrs. Muir, Cape Fear, and Taxi Driver.

Wednesday August 17, 12 - 1 pm: 'The Help' -- as film, as historic and cultural narrative A look at the movie The Help, based on the best-selling book of the same name by Kathryn Stockett, about African- American maids working in white households in Jackson, Mississippi during the early 1960s. Tags: DAN RODRICKS Hollis Robbins Kathryn Stockett Linda DeLibero

Midday with Dan Rodricks 6-7-11 Hour 2 Summer Movies Summer is when Hollywood releases an endless series of films with superheroes, slapstick comedies and sequels but it wasn't always this way. We’ll look movie blockbusters of summers past with Midday film aficionado Linda DeLibero, associate director of film and media studies at Johns Hopkins

This does not contribute to notability. It's stuff she's done, not stuff that other people have said about her. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
"Stuff"? Since when is contributing to the public discourse "stuff"? Since when is publishing for 30 years in notable journals "stuff"? Notable publications and a public radio program hosted by a notable individual indicates that NOTABLE individuals have noted her qualifications. This debate is getting sillier every moment.Critic11 (talk) 03:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
People can contribute to public discourse as much as they like. Notability only occurs if other people are recorded as taking notice of their contributions. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
WYPR's series is other people taking notice of her contributions. How do you think figures in this field are evaluated? -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 06:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Those !voting to keep seem to be conflating the standards for notability and reliability. DeLibero is the author of peer-reviewed scholarship and the news articles, which makes her a reliable source for information in Wikipedia articles; it doesn't make her notable subject of a Wikipedia article.
As for WP:PROF, the standard for #6 is top academic position "at a major academic institution," not at a program within a university, so she seems to fail that test. For #7, her contributions outside of academia don't seem to meet the "substantial impact" criteria, and they seem to be primarily in local media, so that doesn't cut it, either. No evidence of satisfying GNG, so I'm at a loss for any grounds to !vote keep. — Bdb484 (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This makes no sense -- A regular guest on a notable radio station with a notable host is notable because of her opinion, not because she is a source of reliable information. It is verified that the subject's opinions and views have been sought by hosts of public events in Baltimore and DC for years. The subject is not merely a conduit for reliable information, she is a public presence. Critic11 (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely wouldn't make sense if you're confusing the dictionary definition of notability with the Wikipedia definition of notability, which may be what's happening.
To be the subject of a WP article, you must meet the WP definition of notability, not the dictionary definition. WP uses specific criteria to determine whether someone or something is notable, and those criteria are the ones you should be trying to satisfy.
It's not enough to just say that you think that she, a radio station and a radio host are notable, because then I can say they're not, and then we're stuck in an endless argument over subjective criteria; you have to establish that she meets the WP criteria for notability, which are laid out in relevant part here and here. — Bdb484 (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: She has the creds, she has the expertise. She has written and lectured on film and culture for decades and food as well, though not as long as the other two subjects. I'm really confused by how heated this debate has become (both against AND for). The subject is clearly not just a local fluff celebrity, her writings and activities span DC to NYC. The lack of hits on searchable online resources has been brought up, but that seems to stem from a bias against publications and media outlets that aren't completely digital/cloud/interweb type outlets. She obviously (to me) meets WP:PROF C7, but even if that is in question she should be able to pass with PLENTY of room to spare WP:CREATIVE criteria. She seems legit. I really don't understand the why or how this AfD thread got so heated - once again, on both sides. (Also, while I've contributed to Wiki articles for a while now, this is my first AfD post. Please don't bite B Hastings (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— B Hastings (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Linda_DeLibero&oldid=1137989025"