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. There are an even number of comments on the side of delete and keep, though keep has one extra comment, albeit qualified by weak. The keep argument rests mostly on User:CT55555's early comment which mentions "substantial impact" based on "very many reports". Most keeps rely on CT55555's observations. The discussion changes significantly after User:JoelleJay's examination of and challenge to CT55555's observations, which indicates that rather than "substantial impact" the citations are routine mentions, and the number of them is lower than would be expected of an average scholar.
That the subject wrote Geek Girls is seen as a keep reason by an IP editor. This is refuted by User:David Eppstein as writing a book is not in itself regarded as evidence of notability.
User:NeverTry4Me felt that, per WP:ANYBIO, being given an award conveyed notability. This was questioned, though not appropriately challenged. It is unclear if International Childfree Day is significant enough in itself to convey notability, though we do have an article on it.
User:Beccaynr puts forward a convincing analyses of the subject's notability. The analyses stands up to examination, therefore, along with User:JoelleJay's examination of and challenge to CT55555's observations, the conclusion is that the subject is not notable according to our inclusion criteria.
There is a possibility that the concept of Emotional Tax, or the book about it, may become notable, as that is what the cites largely refer it. Though there are not enough reliable sources which talk in depth about the subject, Jennifer Thorpe-Moscon, for us to keep this article. SilkTork (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think she passes WP:NACADEMIC as she is an expert in equity issues, has had a substantial impact (criterion 1 or 7) based on the very many reports and papers that cite and quote her work. Some examples:
CORLEY, T. Creating Accountability for Inclusive, Responsive Leadership: To make inclusion a cultural reality, organizations must examine how diversity and leadership can and should work together. People & Strategy, [s. l.], v. 43, n. 1, p. 28–32, 2020. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=142080950&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 23 jun. 2022.
Keep - I agree with CT55555 and thank them for going the additional step and improving the article with the sources quoted. Citations in pieces from Harvard and Stanford is pretty strong grounds for meeting NACADEMIC. Together, sources found by CT55555 demonstrate impact in scholarly discipline. MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with the source analysis as above, with thanks to the user. Oaktree b (talk) 03:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
yes, thanks for the analysis. I wanted to offer a "thanks" using the edit history/clicking on the heart icon thing, but I can't see how to do that. Oaktree b (talk) 03:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the heart icon is how to dispense wikilove and you do that via people's talk pages. You can do the thank thing in the history of the page, but I'll take this as thanks. You are all welcome. I'm trying to model good behaviour at AfD to make sure I improve articles as well as vote, hopefully this will reduce the current polarisation that I'm seeing at recent WP:ANI conversations and now at ArbCom. I appreciate the feedback. Peace. CT55555 (talk) 04:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed with Kj cheetham here. It doesn't matter that a researcher is cited. The sources mentioned above do not count toward C1 as they are not peer-reviewed scholarly publications such as journals or academic books. To meet NPROF C1, a scholar must have an outstanding number of citations of their work (and it's critical this work be attributed largely to them, i.e. middle-author and grad school-level papers are not sufficient) -- well above that of the average professor in their field; or have their body of work as a whole described in detail (beyond a citation or brief mention) in multiple independent publications; or have many of their papers independently and individually reviewed. I am not seeing this for this researcher.
There could be a C7 pass if her research has made an exceptional impact on policy. However, this is also demonstrably lacking in the sources above: 1. Where is Thorpe-Moscon specifically discussed in the McKinsey report? 2. This is just a routine citation. 3. "Research by the University of Virginia’s Courtney McCluney and Catalyst’s Dnika Travis and Jennifer Thorpe-Moscon shows that because black employees feel a heightened sense of difference among their mostly white peers, their ability to contribute is diminished." This is better than just appearing in a reference section, but is still a very standard academic citation (and is split across three authors). An average professor in many disciplines would have dozens of these across dozens of papers. 4. "According to authors Dnika J. Travis and Jennifer Thorpe-Moscon, an emotional tax is “a psychological burden where one has to use one’s mental resources to stay vigilant against bias, discrimination, and exclusion.” Over time, this emotional tax causes personal and professional harm on both a person’s well-being and their career success." Again, a standard reference to a research article. These are most certainly not what NPROF demands with C1 or C7, otherwise almost every postdoc publishing in fields where papers only have 1–3 authors would be eligible for an article. Additionally, I see that many of these citations are to reports directly from Catalyst, where she is VP, rather than research published in peer-reviewed journals. I am not sure what is standard in social science, but the fact that this research is not academically published may disqualify citations of it wholesale from C1 and C7. In which case they would need to be evaluated through GNG instead. JoelleJay (talk) 05:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I recognise in hindsight that I may have made a less convincing argument than I thought above. I could have made it more robust, if I have foreseen better the critique. I would ask people to drop her name into Google Books and you'll see pages and pages of books that mention her work. I think my initial assessment of her having a substantial impact in the equity space, a substantial influence on writers and scholar is reasonable. CT55555 (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CommentCT55555 I'd already done that as part of following up from Google Scholar, but the ones I looked at just looked like standard references, not significant reviews of her work. Are there any specific ones which go into detail, rather than just refer to her work? -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for delayed reply, been doing other stuff and choosing to limit my time at AfD. What I saw was lots of high quality sources (Harvard, Stanford etc) quoting her work. I did not go further than that, as that seemed like she was having a significant impact, which is what I was looking for. My thinking is that anyone who's influencing academic publications of these universities is what I would perceive as having a significant impact. Re: WP:NACADEMIC. CT55555 (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'd be expecting to see either independant in-depth reviews of her quote and/or significantly more citations to count as significant impact in academia. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have been wondering if my view is an outlier from consensus, or if my way of looking at this is a logical and defensible position. Especially, I'm thinking about that as the ArbCom are focusses on behaviour in AfD and I'm curious if I exhibit any of the behaviours that seem to be the topic of hot debate. I hope my way of looking at this is reasonable, I'm currently second guessing every comment I make at AfD. CT55555 (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic is reasonable. I'm primarily basing my view on having looked at 100s of other biographical articles of academics and having spent time as an academic myself. Just getting quoted/cited is practically WP:RUNOFTHEMILL to many people, but could argue being cited in published books is higher profile than typical academic journals. If it's just passing mentions that's not significant though. In this case, numbers of cites are low. I'm staying out of the ArbCom issue, though am aware it exists. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citation counts definitely not adequate for WP:PROF. It appears that her books are self-published; this is not per se an obstacle to WP:AUTHOR notability, but we would need multiple published in-depth reviews for multiple books, and I didn't find any. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Geek Girls is in WorldCat and she is cited tons of times in GoogleBooks. Let's stop deleting bios of under-represented groups plz. 128.252.172.28 (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Having a work published (and then listed in a comprehensive catalog of all publications), and belonging to an under-represented group, are not valid criteria for notability. The work has to have some significant impact, as measured for instance by reviews or citations. Lowering the bar is neither necessary for improving our representation (there are plenty of under-represented people to write about who do meet our notability standards) nor helpful in improving our representivity (because it would lead to including even more articles from publicity-hungry but non-under-represented people). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She is cited in numerous commercially-published books, a fact easily verified. Your second statement is a non-sequitur because WP is loaded with numerous bios of non-notable people, almost all of whom are there because of various special interests. Delete those first. Keep this one because the citations are there. 128.252.172.28 (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that that is a standard argumentative fallacy that is usually trotted out when one wants to divert attention away from inconvenient, relevant facts. Namely, the notability standard, in practice, has been lowered by numerous (tens of thousands, at least) bios of people who would not have been considered notable several years ago, ie before special interests became so powerful on WP. It is also a fallacy to equivocate book and paper citations. The former goes much more toward notability and our subject here has been cited many times in commercially-published books. My !vote stays as is. 128.252.172.28 (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Namely, the notability standard, in practice, has been lowered by numerous (tens of thousands, at least) bios of people who would not have been considered notable several years ago, Notability standards were much, much laxer and less enforced in the past, and have only gotten stronger with time. There are ongoing efforts to delete the bios of all the non-notable people created back then.
It is also a fallacy to equivocate book and paper citations. The former goes much more toward notability Where do our notability guidelines say this? JoelleJay (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I would have thought that the following points would have been well-known by seasoned WP editors, which folks here seem to be: (1) WP is >6M articles and it is still growing linearly. These properties necessarily correlate with newer articles being, on average, on more obscure, less notable topics. This applies to bios, which are a large fraction of WP. (2) Developments like editathons, wiki-eds, and wiki projects have grown enormously, and encourage their members toward special-interest rather than organic editing. Wiki-eds, in particular, are often secondary school students, whose page creations are not guided at all by notability considerations. (3) These pages are being created far faster than they can be vetted and culled (if necessary) by AfDs, judging by the sizes of the various AfD pages. (4) Such dynamics result in ongoing multiplication of the number of low-notability bios on WP across the board, e.g. in entertainment, sports, art, lit, and academia. Since I am reading this one on academics' AfD, let me give just a few higher-ed examples; WP has numerous articles on postdocs, asst profs, academics in dev. countries having essentially no res. citations, etc. that would have never survived AfD several years ago as a matter of policy. These observations are squarely incompatible with any belief that WP notability standards increase over time. As for the WHATABOUTISM reminder above, the lower notability standard creates a contradiction for this article, because it's being judged by claimed standards that do not really exist in-practice. That seems arbitrary and capricious, not to mention unfair. Finally, as another ed reminded us all below, please don't minimize the gender bias here. WP is still a very unwelcoming place for lots of folks and these sorts of AfDs are not helpful. (I am 128.252.172.28 above) 128.252.172.9 (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your four points, but none of them demonstrate our notability standards have lowered, on paper or in practice. Notability isn't generally gauged at the time of article creation, but rather when challenged at AfD, so we can't attribute an increase in non-notable unchallenged subjects to weakened standards. In fact, we have empirical evidence that criteria have tightened: look at how many formerly-presumed-notable sportspeople are now being deleted due to NSPORT changing.
From your examples: the postdoc I personally would consider non-notable per BLP1E, but would be evaluated under GNG, not NPROF. The assistant prof would also likely fall under GNG (or editors would argue that one of her awards somehow met ANYBIO or NPROF), although I would also !vote delete on her as well. The last example was kept in 2016 on the basis of meeting GNG, not NPROF; again, I would have !voted delete since her coverage doesn't appear sufficient.
Your argument seems to be that these other non-notable white and black women academics have articles because of an overzealous drive to correct bias, and therefore we should keep this particular non-notable white woman academic...to correct bias. Why not instead employ a consistent standard at every AfD instead of contributing to the problem you complain about? And insinuating that delete !voters are just being unconsciously misogynistic is trivializing and insulting to efforts that try to address gender bias without introducing double standards. Some of us just don't think low-citation non-academic research and self-published books are enough to meet NPROF, regardless of gender. JoelleJay (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You agree with my 4 points and also agree you would !vote delete on all the examples I gave of non-notable bios that happily exist on WP to this day, but you still insist notability threshold for academics is rising...got it. My basic point is this; in light of the existence of numerous indisputably non-notable bios on WP, the delete !votes here are unfairly holding this particular bio to a higher standard, which exists on paper, but not really in practice. Further, this sort of inconsistency hurts WP credibility. 128.252.172.7 (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say anything about NPROF standards specifically, although it's very likely they have also risen given the number of deletions of subjects who were kept at previous AfDs and the many deletions of old articles.
the delete !votes here are unfairly holding this particular bio to a higher standard So your solution is to just keep all non-notable academic bios? Because I don't see how it's possible for us to delete those other articles without also "unfairly holding [them] to a higher standard". JoelleJay (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having a hard time making myself clear, but it's really very simple: (1) Even though some non-notable bios are deleted, they are created at a far faster rate and the aggregate number of them now existing on WP is large and increasing. (2) This state of affairs constitutes a de facto standard of what the acceptable level of notability is on WP, irrespective of what policies and guidelines say. (3) It is unfair to judge the notability of Jennifer against a higher standard than what actually exists in practice. I suppose the rise of this kind of inconsistency was bound to happen because of the confluence of two factors: WP has no real mechanism to enforce uniformity and there has been an influx of large numbers of special interest editing groups/events. As to your question about my solution...You either change WP policies/guidelines to match what actually already exists, or you cull the massive corpus of non-notables and create stronger barriers to creating such articles. Either method would return matters to a consistent state, but I doubt either will happen. It's a shame, because this is one of the main impediments to WP ever being considered as an authoritative source by the general public. We've digressed far and I suggest we end our little discussion here. Thanks. 128.252.174.220 (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just because editors haven't gotten around to nominating these non-notable bios for deletion doesn't mean they meet notability guidelines or would be kept at AfD. And just because WP is slow to codify remedies for counteracting new issues, like mass article creation from special interest groups, doesn't mean we have to throw our hands up and accept whatever standards these bad articles reflect. It would be great if we required GNG or NPROF be demonstrated from the outset for all new creations, but for whatever reason the community right now believes WP should be largely reactive, not preemptive, when it comes to inappropriate articles. There's also no way to WP policies/guidelines to match what actually already exists; where would we draw the new line for academics -- at the least-qualified subject currently in mainspace? At the lowest quartile (what would that be?)? Based on the historic results of AfDs? JoelleJay (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, how is she under-represented? Just because she's a woman? JoelleJay (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And it's not trivializing to appeal uncritically to gender bias when contesting deletion of a non-notable biography? JoelleJay (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to answer such a question with a simple yes or no, because it would imply agreement she is non notable. I didn't, and I chose not to, mention equity in my keep arguments. I also chose not to critique others who do. Like most things, it's complicated. Is gender a major factor here? Who knows. Are all editors free from unconscious bias? Probably not. We're probably reaching the point, or past the point where someone is going say we're off topic, so I'll just acknowledge that here, in an attempt to wrap this tangent up. Peace. CT55555 (talk) 19:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Little sign of WP:NPROF, and only one book with 2 reviews (and also two coauthors) for possible WP:NAUTHOR. Although I think most of us here are interested in helping develop articles on notable women, I'm not seeing a pass of any of our notability criteria here. An alternative to deletion would be a redirect to a stub on the Emotional Tax book; as the book itself appears to be only marginally notable, I'm not so sure that this is worthwhile. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:NPROF#1. Her work appears to be influential based on frequency of citation in books. pburka (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pburka, how many of those books citing her are peer-reviewed academic publications, as required for NPROF C1? And what evidence do you have that the number of citations is outstanding for her field? JoelleJay (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misphrased the question -- I meant how many of Thorpe-Moscon's peer-reviewed academic publications are cited in those books. And do you know what is actually considered "widely cited" in business psych and management, especially as it relates to minorities? As far as I can tell, Thorpe-Moscon has around 115 citations on GS. A typical assistant professor in the same subfield -- who would not be considered notable by NPROF -- has around 500–1200 GS citations (other examples: [1], [2]). Full professors in the area -- who are still not notable through NPROF unless they are well above the "average professor" -- generally have between 2500 and 12,000 citations (the standard seems to be at least5000), including many hundreds in books. Meanwhile, researchers who pass other NPROF criteria (and so are very likely to also pass C1) may have upwards of 30,000 citations. Merely being cited in books is not enough for notability; impact must be judged in comparison to other researchers in the field for citations to mean anything. JoelleJay (talk) 03:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP as per @CT55555: and she is also International Childfree Day winner in 2013. I have googled around for International Childfree Day, and found it is notable, hence the award can be assumed as also notable. The article might not be a great one and needs improvement, but in my opinion after googling for sources, sufficient enough is there to pass WP:GNG- Signed by NeverTry4MeTalk 23:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you arguing that winning "Childfree Person of the Year" meets ANYBIO....? JoelleJay (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I tried to improve this article, which is primarily based on two self-published social media profiles and her profile at her employer organization. I found and added a Fast Company article, which attributes a description of her employer organization to her and a coworker: "Most of Catalyst’s member organizations are large corporations that want to improve diversity" and the article states, "Since 1987, Catalyst has been giving out awards to companies that do the most to promote diversity." Thorpe-Moscon also offers brief commentary on gender diversity in Star Wars, and a variety of research is cited in the article, including a report by her employer organization. The two pages of Google books results include The Leader's Guide to Unconscious Bias (2020) at p. 80, citing a co-authored report in a footnote for Catalyst's definition of "emotional tax"; Young, Gifted and Diverse: Origins of the New Black Elite (2022) at p. 439, a general references page; HBR's 10 Must Reads 2021 (2020) at p. 46, one paragraph mentioning the co-authored 'emotional tax' report - it is not highlighting her work as a 'Must Read'; Beyond D&I: Leading Diversity with Purpose and Inclusiveness (2021) at 89, a co-authored Catalyst report is listed in a general list of references; The Leadership Experience (2022) appears to be a high school or early college textbook that quotes her at p. 416 and states she has done "in-depth research" on the issue of a "double bind" and then proceeds to define double jeopardy as the "double dose" of discrimination for women of color, without any citation; The HBR Diversity and Inclusion Collection (5 Books) (2021) at fn 10, a co-authored "emotional tax" report; Rituals Roadmap: The Human Way to Transform Everyday Routines Into Workplace Magic p. 192, fn 25, co-authored report; How to Be an Ally: Actions You Can Take for a Stronger, Happier Workplace (2021) p. 239, fn 15, co-authored Catalyst report (emotional tax), p. 241, fn 12, co-authored Catalyst report "Getting Real About Inclusive Leadership: Why Change Starts With You"; It's Not You It's the Workplace: Women's Conflict at Work and the Bias that Built It (2019), a footnote. Catalyst published The Double-bind Dilemma for Women in Leadership (2007) before she began working for the organization. It appears to be WP:TOOSOON for WP:NACADEMIC C#1, i.e. that her research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources, or per C#2 a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level or C#4, that her academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions, or C#7, that she has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. I have also not found support for WP:GNG/WP:BASIC notability due to the limited secondary coverage about her and/or her work. Beccaynr (talk) 01:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: My original closeThe result was no consensus. Valid input looking at Thorpe-Moscon from both sides of the coin. With opinions (all backed up with solid reasoning) split, I do not see a relist solving to the lack of consensus. was queried by two established editors, so relisting for more input, which never hurts. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi 13:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with CT55555. Lightburst (talk) 00:51, 20 July 2022 (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.