- 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. ✗plicit 23:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Catharine Young (scientist)[edit]
- Catharine Young (scientist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PR-based coverage. Lacks reliable WP:SIGCOV. US-Verified (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- This is just a blog. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC).[reply]
- Where do you see that? The authors seem legit per info given. And "Welcome to POLITICO’s West Wing Playbook" doesn't seem to state "Not proper Politico content" either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a chatty but legitimate column of reporting from a reputable news organization — a newsletter for (people who fancy themselves to be) political insiders, not a blog. XOR'easter (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Science, and South Africa. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Delete. No presence found by me yet on GS. No pass of WP:Prof. Although her academic qualifications are in science it seems that she has left science to become an administrator. I question if it is now appropriate to describe her as "(scientist)". Xxanthippe (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC).[reply]- Comment. I have not yet formulated an opinion on the merits of this specific article, but I found this on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators as part of a batch of five new deletion nominations
by the same nominator, all of women academics. This is far out of proportion to the number of articles, or the number of new articles, on women academics. If this nominator is specifically targeting women for deletion, we have a problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- At a glance, the nom's Afd stats [2] doesn't indicate shenanigans, and the noms indicate some WP:BEFORE has been done. I'll AGF at this point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @David Eppstein: it looks to me like you're looking at a batch of 5 new AfD nominations, two by US-Verified and three by Chiserc. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- US-Verified's June 11 afd:s are 1 company, 3 men and 3 women. That doesn't seem redflag-ish. "five new deletion nominations by the same nominator, all of women academics" seems like a misreading. Consider striking that on the pages you wrote it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- On my talk, Chiserc has admitted to searching through women's categories for articles to delete. The intentions may be good but the effect is discriminatory. —David Eppstein (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, don't misinterpret what I said. I looked for many categories to sort out potential notability issues. You even blamed for nominations that I didn't do, like this and another one. The active nominations now are 3 women and 2 men academics (and many others). Please, check something more carefully before striking the same message on many pages. Chiserc (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- So your above comment ("I have not yet formulated...") was referring to Chiserc, not the nominator/US-Verified? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't part of this nomination at all. David Eppstein involved my name on this discussion, and probably another one, and I don't know why he blamed for. I won't continue this discussion here, since it's irrelevant to the topic. Chiserc (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction: The batch of women academic nominators had two different nominators. Of the two, the one I have been in contact with on my talk (User:Chiserc) appears to be unrepentant about the discriminatory effect caused by searching women's categories for deletion targets. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and above. Karnataka (talk) 09:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.