Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca J. Nelson

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 no consensus to delete. Ifnord 14:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rebecca J. Nelson

Not notable- not worthy of inclusion

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Professor with no extraordinary accomplishments. Ruby 16:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• After further review, changing to Keep Ruby 05:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Ruby. Crunch 17:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 17:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Latinus 18:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

*merge with Cornell University if that article exists. Jcuk 18:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Has published many papers and some books; hundreds of citations. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 18:48Z

• Delete – Not (yet) worthy of inclusion. Not the main author of any major publication as far as I can see. — Hillel 03:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — In the light of the information unearthed by Crypticfirefly, I change my vote to "keep". — Hillel 05:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Very much on the edge, I say we go with it... Nick Catalano (Talk) 05:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Thanks Crypticfirefly --Nick Catalano (Talk) 06:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The lady has lead an internationally-known fight to preserve Peruvian potato varieties, and won a MacArthur "genius grant" in 1998. The article merely needs to be expanded. Crypticfirefly 05:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Definitely. MacArthur genius grant is quite prestigous, and she was profiled in serveral publications of high (enough) readership. I'd like a little more on her own publications, but she looks more notable than your "average professor". Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep maybe borderline, but I'll have to side with the inclusionists on this one. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 08:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. nn, is essentially an orphaned article, and reads like a "Who's Who" vanity. --Aaron 09:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep on the basis of MacArthur Fellowship. It's not as prestigious as it used to be and there were rumoured political factors in her selection, but it's still a keep. Crunch 14:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Interesting. Are the rumors (or at least their existance) of politcal factors sufficiently verifiable to include that info in the article? All I know about this lady is what I read in the cited news stories. Crypticfirefly 18:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know what led to this particular individual winning her grant, but in general, it boggles my mind that a MacArthur Grant in any way constitutes noteworthiness on WP. (See [1] for starters.) --Aaron 18:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Why so? It makes her "more well known" than the average professor, she is arguably a participant in a "newsworthy" event, and many do consider it an indication that her work is somehow exceptional: only a handful of people receive these awards. It's no Nobel prize, but its not like she won a blue ribbon at the county fair for growing a vegetable that resembles G. Gordon Liddy. The article you link is interesting, but it seems to go to the award recipients for the arts, which no doubt are more susceptible to being "political" choices than the academic awards.Crypticfirefly 05:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• keep as per new information Jcuk 15:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per verified MacArthur grant. Turnstep 15:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, Macarthur Fellow. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Macarthur Fellow should meet standard of notability. Calwatch 05:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per Lulu O.T.L.E Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 07:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• keep - As per calwatch -- Geo Swan 17:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete: I personally, think this article should be kept, but I know of scientists that have won nobel prizes and haven't been deemed notable enough for an article on wikipedia.(Unsigned edit by User:Helzagood)
  • Perhaps it's simply that nobody has created an article on them yet. Turnstep 22:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • So create them. I expect any Nobel Prize winners' articles would survive an AfD. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You'd think so, but i wrote an article about a professor at my university, who was a nobel prize winner, and it was deleted as a nn-bioHelzagood 01:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC).. ps. I don't know if the american community is aware, but the US is different to most other places with respect to professors; in most places, someone that lecturers at a university is not a professor by default, a lecturer becomes a professor upon reaching certain requirements, often, this involves becoming a fellow of their applicable chartered body, and only after years (decades) of dedicated research is this acheived. A professor, in the UK, for example is the highest accolade acheiveable in a lecturers' career; which starts with lectureship, then senior lectureship, then readership/chairmanship, then professorship. Many of my lecturers have been in their job for 20 years and are still only lecturers, this nothing against them, it is just that in the UK, it is a demanding task to climb the status scale. I have it on good understanding, however that in the US, everyone who lectures at a university/college is a professor, which may cause some confusion.Helzagood 01:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Interesting. I don't see anyone on the Nobel laureates by country under the United Kingdom with red links. Perhaps the list is incomplete? I should think that any article on a Nobel prize winner that notes that fact in the article would not be deleted as "non-notable." Which article that you created was deleted? Crypticfirefly 02:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • What was the name of the article? User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:39, 1 February 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.