Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Wright Hubbard

From 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 Keep. NawlinWiki 21:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth Wright Hubbard

Elizabeth Wright Hubbard (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Per WP:BIO, I cannot find any reliable secondary sources that demonstrate this person's notability. Skinwalker 18:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete — I'm not sure its notable, even with sources. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 18:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a bad faith nom from a serial bad faith nominator. Here are the full notability criteria as described in Wikipedia:Notability (people)#special cases under "creative professionals: scientists, academics, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals":
The person has received notable awards or honors -- NO IDEA
The person is regarded as an important figure by their peers or successors --- YES, she was the first woman pres of the American INstitute of Homeopathy from 59-61, president of International Hahnemannian Assn from 45-46, edited THREE homeopathic journals
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique --doesn't sound like it
The person has created a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or multiple independent periodical articles or reviews --- YES, please see article revision.

Based on the above, this individual EASILY meets criteria for notability. Abridged talk 00:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: WP:BIO states "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." (emphasis mine) This[1] source is a reprint of an article in the Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy, which is not intellectually independent of the subject. For someone to meet this criteria, they must have been the object of attention from published sources outside their area of expertise. Otherwise nearly every published scientist in the world, for example, would merit inclusion. Skinwalker 12:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Editor of major journals in a subject -- generally accepted in many AfD as at least a partial consideration for notability. The book was published by a homeopathy publisher she was president of for all of 2 years, and published 27 years after her death--that seems sufficiently unrelated. 20:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 21:59, 4 July 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.