Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mizuko Ito
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 no consensus. Daniel Bryant 09:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Their biggest claim to fame is their status as a visiting professor, which isn't enough Misterdiscreet 00:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if improved (i.e. inline citations, reliable sources) by the end of the AfD. Should be deleted otherwise since unsourced articles about living people shouldn't be allowed to stand regardless of the person's notability. Though even being Joi Ito's sister (probably the main claim to fame) doesn't make you inherently notable, and I don't want to get into a debate about whether she meets WP:PROF, she has independent coverage, e.g. interview in Technology Review [1], so probably meets the primary biographical notability criteria. cab 01:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 03:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have added her official website at USC, which is generally acceptable for details of careers in uncontroversial cases. Her exact title there is "Senior Fellow," not teaching fellow (which is ordinarily a temporary appointment). This is arguably more important than the Visiting Associate Professorship. It can be hard to find equivalent ranks for researchers. As might be expected, her personal website is very detailed and very professional in a sense not typical of academics, and it should be easy to add additional sources. DGG 06:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No assertion of notability. —gorgan_almighty 10:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep. Perhaps she is not notable, but she is the most notable figure in anthropological studies of children's use of technology in cross national contexts. As for being a visiting professor... that is not something to be criticized as not being enough, her publication record and projects is what establishes her as a leading figure, not her title. --Buridan 15:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unless references can be found and added to the article by the end of the deletion debate to show that she satisfies [[WP:PROF}}. Being a "Senior Fellow" (sounds like a postdoc), and being a "Visiting Associate Prof" certainly do not satisfy WP:PROF. Her USC webpage says "numerous publications" but that claim alone is not satisfactory to show she meeets the notability criteria. An editor's assertion here of her notability is not enough. It is required by WP:N to show that others in her field have so recognized her. Edison 17:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment all one has to do is look at her citation counts on google scholar to see her seniority and centrality in the fields she participates. that the proposer or other deletionists haven't even cared enough to look is problematic... AFD is not a process for encouraging article improvement. First you should mark the article for improvement, then wait, and then still do your due diligence before proposing deletion. I see no effort in checking to see if the person pass notability before afd. --Buridan 19:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Mimi is an important cross-cultural researcher and I'm aware of her work in under-represented areas of children and technology (my area of research) and she's contributed to The International Handbook of Virtual Learning Environments which I co-edited. IMHO, she's a well respected researcher and academic... but obviously the piece needs to be developed and improved. BTW, senior fellows tend to be rather prestigious, though not as common perhaps in the US, they're common enough elsewhere. The designation of Professor is problematic itself because in Canada instructors in 2 year community colleges are called professors, where as at Oxford only the head of the department is entitled to use 'professor' I'm told. --Jasonnolan 19:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is really up to those who want to keep an article to do the research and to add the necessary references to the article, rather than scolding others for not each independently spending a considerable time checking "Google scholar" or Science Citation Index or some other data base to try and find the individual's publications, to see what research awards they have received, what review panels they serve on and whar journals they edit, what research grants they have received, and what influence they have had on their field. Thre are thousands of college teachers of varying title in the world, and most of them are so ordinary as to not deserve either an article or even extensive research to try and find if they have distinguished themselves. It really does not satisfy WP:N to say "I edited a book and I say she is distinguished" after the Essjay fiasco. Edison 02:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentIt is really up to wp editors to learn some detail about an article before proposing it for afd, no? This I contend, is an afd that should be withdrawn, as at best the article should have been stubbed and marked for improvement, any basic effort to look into the subject of the article would show that it passes wp:prof and likely even wp:bio. AFD is not a tool to improve articles. --Buridan 11:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw the AFD when three people, including myself, have voted against it? If the subject of this article is as notable as you claim then what does it have to fear from an AfD? Misterdiscreet 15:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Three people who never looked for evidence are not three people who are attempting to build consensus, are they? they are merely projecting their collective lack of interest, or possibly this is just systematic bias, i dunno. the point of it is not that your 3 votes are not significant, it is that your 3 votes have nothing at all to do with notability. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Buridan (talk • contribs) 16:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- No: its the burden of those contributing to the article to prove its notability. When I AFD a questionable article, I'll do a quick check, but I'm not going to invest time on something that is probably going to be a wild goose chase. If the article is truly notable then editors will support it and it will pass. And maybe those supporting its existence will rectify any shortcomings discussed in the process. As this particular article stands: it has 0 independent resources and in this state it fails all criteria at WP:PROF except maybe number 3 (does editing a collection of essays of unestablished notability count?). ccwaters 17:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- NO: it is the burden of the afd proposer to do due diligence before proposing deleting an article, if he or she is not comfortable with the quality, then we use those tags first. this proposer just flagged for afd. if this article had sat under an improve tag for 2 months, sure, i'd have no problem. it didn't it is just a spurious nominations. --Buridan 21:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- maybe you should go edit Template:AfD_in_3_steps to say: the AfD process takes two months to complete. first, recommend the article be improved. two or more months later you can nominate it for deletion. perhaps the only deletes that should be deleted without having to wait two months are ones that are good candidates for speedy deletion? Misterdiscreet 22:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- actually it already says somewhere that afd is not a means toward article improvement, which is why i suggested you should withdraw.--Buridan 22:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- if i withdrawal, i effectively invalidate two votes against this article. you might be able to get me to change my vote, but this afd is no longer mine to withdrawal. Misterdiscreet 22:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- umm, i think you are misunderstanding the afd process. there are no votes. it is consensus. if you withdrew, there would be nothing to have consensus on. --Buridan 00:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- if i withdrawal, i effectively invalidate two votes against this article. you might be able to get me to change my vote, but this afd is no longer mine to withdrawal. Misterdiscreet 22:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- actually it already says somewhere that afd is not a means toward article improvement, which is why i suggested you should withdraw.--Buridan 22:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- maybe you should go edit Template:AfD_in_3_steps to say: the AfD process takes two months to complete. first, recommend the article be improved. two or more months later you can nominate it for deletion. perhaps the only deletes that should be deleted without having to wait two months are ones that are good candidates for speedy deletion? Misterdiscreet 22:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- NO: it is the burden of the afd proposer to do due diligence before proposing deleting an article, if he or she is not comfortable with the quality, then we use those tags first. this proposer just flagged for afd. if this article had sat under an improve tag for 2 months, sure, i'd have no problem. it didn't it is just a spurious nominations. --Buridan 21:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw the AFD when three people, including myself, have voted against it? If the subject of this article is as notable as you claim then what does it have to fear from an AfD? Misterdiscreet 15:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentIt is really up to wp editors to learn some detail about an article before proposing it for afd, no? This I contend, is an afd that should be withdrawn, as at best the article should have been stubbed and marked for improvement, any basic effort to look into the subject of the article would show that it passes wp:prof and likely even wp:bio. AFD is not a tool to improve articles. --Buridan 11:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is really up to those who want to keep an article to do the research and to add the necessary references to the article, rather than scolding others for not each independently spending a considerable time checking "Google scholar" or Science Citation Index or some other data base to try and find the individual's publications, to see what research awards they have received, what review panels they serve on and whar journals they edit, what research grants they have received, and what influence they have had on their field. Thre are thousands of college teachers of varying title in the world, and most of them are so ordinary as to not deserve either an article or even extensive research to try and find if they have distinguished themselves. It really does not satisfy WP:N to say "I edited a book and I say she is distinguished" after the Essjay fiasco. Edison 02:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Along with Henry Jenkins, she is one of the pioneers of the new media literacy movement; it's only a matter of time before her article reflects this. MaxVeers 01:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Ito is a brilliant, widely-cited scholar on youth and digital media. I just added a reference to a BusinessWeek article talking about her work, and a recent MacArthur Foundation grant she received. - JustinHall 23:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a resume service for academics. I can see having articles on truly distinguished or notable individuals, but this does not appear to be one of them. fbb_fan 16:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, a quick look indicates she is notable as writer, speaker and expert in her field. John Vandenberg 03:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Many of the above comments convince me that this person is notable within their field, enough to pass our WP:BIO guideline for inclusion. RFerreira 05:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per nom, and per fbb_fan. Also, no mention of publications or citations -- so where is the notability? A foundation grant is not enough to establish that. Turgidson 22:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.