Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eileen Crimmins

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 after revision and sourcing. Cúchullain ^t/c 02:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eileen_Crimmins

Eileen_Crimmins (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Note to closing administrator: the article was substantially revised early 15 May 2007; that might change how people view it. --Myke Cuthbert 03:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The user page of the article's creator was started in a very unusual way and the creator has been involved in apparent spamming. The speedy deletion tag has been removed from the page twice by people connected with the creator, who like those people appears to have problems allowing speedy deletion tags to stay in place until seen by an administrator. Some or all of WP:COI self-promotion, autiobiography, close relationships and campaigning may apply. There are no sources and no citations of published work.ER^Talk 10:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

(the user page was started by my error in putting a request for sources note there instead of the talk page)DGG 13:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep Speedy Delete Here are a few links to publications from Eileen Crimmins. That should confirm her notabiliy. There are plenty more links if you wish to see more evidence. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8][9], [10]. --Cyrus Andiron 12:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That being said, the entire page is a copyvio from this page [11]. I've nominated for Speedy Deletion. The subject is notable, but the page will need to be recreated without plagarizing. --Cyrus Andiron 12:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite right. I removed the copyvio and stubbified the page. For people who seem N, that's a reasonable course. The bio will be re-addded written properly form sources, and the references added. The nom is unaware of WP policy that speedy cannot be used if there is an assertion of notability, and that any ed. other than the author may remove a speedy. I did so (before my recent successful RfA, not being aware at the time of the copyvio. Copyvio is of course another matter. I have no connection whatsoever with the creator or the subject, except for urging the author to write the articles not copy them. The nom. has commented on the article talk page: "science bureaucrats become just that through trivial publications etc. and as I'm sure you know most universities today run special easy option courses especially for bureaucrat students and profit".

• Keep on the basis of the published work. DGG 13:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep although not sure these are refereed journals. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Reasonable question: using the lists of titles in WoS, as listed in Journal Citation Reports, they are all there:

In Journal Citation Reports-Science: J Geronto -A , Science, Ann NYAS,

In JCR-Social Science: Am Sociol Rev, Demography, Public Opinion Q, , SocSci & Med, J Aging & Health, Research on Aging.

All of which are actually pretty good, since all are in top 1/3 of their JCR category by impact factor, except Res Aging which is about midway. the ones that dont have a WP article yet will when we get to them. Ann NYAS is actually a series of peer-reviewed symposia at the NYAS, but the indexes treat it as a journal. JCR has only peer-reviewed journals except for a few professional magazines that are edited in a discriminating way & of very high quality, but not specifically peer-reviewed, but none of these are in that group. If these had not been in good journals I would have said delete. I do say that for scientists when that's the case (smile). DGG 02:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 04:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• comment deletekeep Her ISI WoS h-index=17, but there is no article here, this does not even rise to the level of posting a CV on Wikipedia. WP:NOT "Wikipedia is not the white pages." It's only been tagged since "May 2007" so it doesn't seem appropriate to delete, but I think if an article explaining notable achievements does not appear here in 6 months to replace this stub, then it ought to be deleted. Pete.Hurd 04:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC) change to delete Pete.Hurd 02:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC) changed once more following Myke Cuthbert's edits. Pete.Hurd 03:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: not on notability (she seems notable), not on reliable sources (they could probably be found), but because the article as it is is not an encyclopedia article. --Myke Cuthbert 05:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC). Keep: I hate to see DGG lose an AfD, so I rewrote the article. Please let me know if it's keepable now.
• Delete As the nominator I'm not sure this is necessary. However, particularly per the above reason given by Myke Cuthbert, along with apparent poor faith and copyright violation in article creation, poor faith deletion of speedy deletion tags, and the poor attempt at an attack above (which also appears to be unsigned because of indentation ...). Pete.Hurd, please note that the attempts to have this page deleted for obvious reasons go back to February. More recently, I came across it and put it up for speedy deletion. DGG, who seems for some reason to have a mission to protect any page about anyone who can be termed an academic, removed the speedy deletion tag twice; another user did the same for three times since mid-April; neither bothered to try to improve the article. DGG even claimed an intention to put the article up for AfD but didn't bother with that either.ER^Talk 15:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

(smile) as for AfD, you beat me to it. For the rest, people here know to what extent I am impartial. DGG 00:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ummmm, you know ER, I *have* seen DGG vote to delete academic bios, it might not happen often... But he has a point in this case, and I don't think you should belittle it, this person almost certainly passes WP:PROF. Where you and I agree is that this bio is so poor that it merits deletion - something I'm certain DGG would never condone ;) - because it's simply a sub-CV entry into the WP rolodex of eggheads (and I really dislike WP serving as a rolodex). Pete.Hurd 01:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm on the other side from DGG on this issue (though in all honesty, I'm probably more often on the "preserve academics' pages" side than average), but I'm not sure his support record is really an issue here. As long as WP operates on the consensus of interpretations of policies, I think that less typical interpretations are welcome voices in the sea of discussion. The only requirement about holding an unusual viewpoint is that you have to be a good sport about losing now and then, and from what I've seen DGG personifies good nature. --Myke Cuthbert 02:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Article "touched-up" a bit. Perhaps qualifies for changing opinion on AfD? (Though I don't know anything about Gerontology, so still could use an expert). --Myke Cuthbert 03:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

good enough for me, changing !vote. Pete.Hurd 03:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it certainly looks a lot better, and thanks for the message, Myke Cuthbert, and pertinent comments above, Pete.Hurd. Though agreeing with the below comments, too, (particularly the bit about speedy tags, which appears to be based purely on a current absence of policy) I won't change my own bold type on the article since this comment clearly applied every time the speedy tag was applied to earlier versions of the article and the conclusion now looks obvious.ER^Talk 10:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as rewritten; clearly notable, but the most important is that it is now referenced and verifiable. Nice work. Antandrus (talk) 03:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Since the fixup was done on 15 May I believe the article is now worth keeping. In general I share the view of DGG that full professors are notable, though I would not have gone along with 'keep' if there were no significant publications that could be shown and discussed. Now that the defect has been remedied, I'm OK with keeping the article. I, too, was surprised to learn that anyone besides the author can now remove a speedy tag per WP:CSD. (I seem to recall a template that used to forbid that). EdJohnston 14:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC).
• Delete. Just another accomplished person, one among hundreds of thousands. Writing a book etc. is normal for a full professor. She is no more notable than an accomplished attorney, doctor, etc. Herostratus 17:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, named professor, on the panel of national body and notable journal. John Vandenberg 15:43, 18 May 2007 (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.