Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elaine Louise Zanutto

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 DELETE after banned user discounted. -Doc 23:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elaine Louise Zanutto

Elaine Zanutto was speedy deleted A7. Another user put the G4 tag on, but that doesn't apply to speedy deletes (as recreation in that case is equivalent to contesting the speedy), so taking to AfD. I'm neutral for now, as this is just procedural. I'd imagine the problem here is notability, but more research needs to be done. ColourBurst 23:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: Why was it speedied? Michael Hardy 23:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment No idea. User:Fang Aili is was the admin who deleted it the first time, so she'd be the one to talk to. ColourBurst 00:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Some of MathStatWoman's contribs are questionable, and this is maybe borderline, but I'm liberal on inclusion of academics (meets the Pokemon test). --Trovatore 00:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Reservation I mean, "keep if verified" (I haven't attempted to do so.). --Trovatore 00:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I was requested to look at the speedied version by David Oberst and it basically the same except the sentece-section about "Family" is now replaced by a list of doctoral students. I guess Fang Aili thought that the resume isn't an explicit assertion of notability, or perhaps likened it to an advert and deleted it anyway as some admins speedy delete ads.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • PS - It was created last week by the same author. - Whoops. I didn't check carefully enough. It was by MathStatWoman actually, on August 2.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Blnguyen | rant-line 01:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This article was NOT created by MathStatWoman but Ksingh20. Please check your facts!! This is not a computer game, Boys - Please spend a little time and do a little research before you open your mouth. And please, do it in that order! MxM Peace 12:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable bio of an academic. Brian 01:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)btball
    • Comment Please give stats and proof if you have any rather than making such vague comments. Where is the evidence? MxM Peace 12:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment The process works the other way - the article needs to provide verifiable sources of notability that conform to either WP:Bio or, in this case, WP:Prof. I don't see that as I read the article. If you think the article does have verifiable sources of notability conforming to either of the above criteria, then you should cite them here. Thanks, Brian 20:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)btball
  • Comment Please give stats and proof if you have any rather than making such vague comments. List a few of the other academics & their nn figures MxM Peace 12:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - this article in essence merely states that this is an academic, and has the credentials and work history (i.e. publications) expected in such a case. There is no assertion of notability to meet any of the criteria of WP:PROF. - David Oberst 02:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment What's wrong with an academic?? Google produces over 1k results if all the various different searches are combined - One basic search gives over 240 results. So person is noteworthy. What is your research, if any? Please do not make any remark without proof or evidence - Without evidence, those comments are meaningless MxM Peace 12:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Meets all the requirements for Notable characters; Has a strong presence on the Web; Is a leading expert in the field. We need more specialists mentioned on Wikipedia; MxM Peace 02:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Meets all the requirements for Notable characters; Has a strong presence on the Web; Is a leading expert in the field. We need more specialists mentioned on Wikipedia. Can add even more to her bio. Shall do so soon if bio is not deleted. And, please, guys, don't get on my case because I am voting on this. MathStatWoman 18:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not assert meeting any of the tests at WP:PROF. WP:PROF says that an academic who meets none of those tests may still be notable. I believe WP:BIO applies to such cases, but I see no assertion of meeting any of the WP:BIO tests either. (Although I don't consider the publication list to contain an assertion of notability, I also comment that the list of publications, because it includes items "accepted for publication", is clearly from a resume or equivalent, and hence not an independent reliable source that could be used to establish notability.) GRBerry 20:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I happen to know something about Zanutto's research (I've read 5 or 6 of the publications listed in her article), and I think she does some nice work. My impression is that she's a bit above the average college professor, although I'm not sure how to demonstrate that. I would not class her as especially notable (unlike both her advisors, Rao and Rubin, who we don't seem to have articles for). But I'm fairly liberal on inclusion of academics, and there's enough verifiable material here for a short article, hence my vote to keep. The article should be cleaned up, though; long lists of publications and grants are not appropriate. -- Avenue 00:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    I certainly have nothing against Dr. Zenutto (who I have absolutely no knowledge of), and as you say, the CV reads impressively. Personally I'd be cheering this person on - going to Carlton means she is likely a fellow Canadian, and I work with a bunch of government statisticians who deal with surveys and census stuff. But certainly there seems to be no notability requiring an article - nothing that would produce any linkages form other articles, etc. If Wikipedia wanted to go in the direction of ignoring WP:PROF and including stubs on pretty much all established academics I suppose there would be nothing wrong with that, but having these sorts of articles decided haphazardly based on who happens to come across the AfD doesn't seem useful (Roberta Wenocur was deleted, for example). - David Oberst 06:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Assistant Professor, two joint articles in J Am Stat Assoc, two joint papers with 13 cites each, is about eight to ten years removed from reaching WP:PROF. ~ trialsanderrors 08:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are many, many as accomplished people in this world -- millions, certainly. Granted, her job doesn't entail wearing a platic tag with her name on it. Granted, she is a smart woman and most likely kind to crippled animals. Nevertheless does not meet WP:PROF. Come back when she has a couple-three books that have made a significant major splash in academic circles. Herostratus 22:44, 29 August 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.