Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Oster

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 of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts ^talk 03:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emily Oster

Lots of people get Ph.D.s, I do not see why this one is in any way notable. (Perhaps because I do not know what the missing women problem is?) Austrian 20:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom James Kendall [talk] 20:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; could be speedied as nn-bio. bikeable (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC) Keep per Monicasdude, although to be fair, the article as nominated was completely unreferenced. bikeable (talk) 00:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Still no references, except for the two links that I just added (home page, CV) Austrian 08:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. You know, if the nominator has simply googled "missing women problem" [8] (a better choice than announcing one's own ignorance on a matter and proceeding without researching) this could have been avoided. Monicasdude 21:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

comment Googling is not "research". Because of my ignorance, I called for afd, rather than asking to speedily delete it because the article (still!) does not "assert the importance or significance of the subject" (Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion A7).

If the "missing women" problem is not important or interesting enough to have an article on Wikipedia, then Emily Oster is not important enough, either. But please, contribute your knowledge to Wikipedia, and at least add some relevant links to the article and not only here. Austrian 08:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Response. Frankly, this argument makes no sense to me. The fact that Wikipedia doesn't have an article on a particular subject in no way establishes that Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on the subject. Otherwise it would be time to disable the creation of new articles. Monicasdude 15:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. She just got her Ph.D. last month? That means she's a non-notable academic. Brian G. Crawford 23:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. No, it means , at most, she's non-notable as an academic. Einstein published his first set of major papers (including the one which got him a Nobel) very shortly after getting his doctorate; are you saying they weren't enough to establish notability for the good professor? Monicasdude 23:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• • We've had this discussion before. A little minor media coverage does not constitute notability. It's just a regular thesis, and she is hardly Einstein. James Kendall [talk] 23:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. There seem to be a reasonable number of media mentions that are not minor, such as in Slate, BusinessWeek, Salon, and NY Times. Despite just receiving her Ph.D., I think her involvement with this issue has reached the point where she and her thesis are key players. Definitely cleanup, though; e.g., the phrase "[s]he is perhaps most well-known for her PhD thesis" seems a little... odd. (Full disclosure: I stumbled upon this article while creating a stub for a former professor of mine, Ray Fair, who happens to be Oster's father. I have opted not to link that article to this one, pending the outcome.) --Kinu ^t/_c 23:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete While not totally devoid of notability (like our oft-deleted articles on high-school kids and forum personalities), I don't think that having written a thesis is quite enough to clear the bar. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as above. Looks verifiable to me. For great justice. 00:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per above and as "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" (from WP:BIO)--blue520 03:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Please add information or links about "renown or notoriety" to the article, not only to the discussion. Austrian 08:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, per above. Her work is solid, and that economists better than her aren't included does not mean she should be excluded...rather that more good economists should be included. 01:16, 5 April 2006

More important: information about their work, rather than about the persons. Austrian 08:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per many reasons above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 15:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above numerous comments and as an apparent bad faith nomination. Kukini 16:07, 5 April 2006 (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.