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. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Kolodziejski[edit]

Leslie Kolodziejski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

No sources in this article are WP:INDEPENDENT of the subject... even though some claims of notability may seem to adhere to WP:PROF guide. But a guideline cannot trump a core policy like WP:Verifiability#Notability which says If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it and further clarified at WP:Notability under WP:NRV: there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. For example, the sources used to mention being a Fellow of The Optical Society are from MIT (the subject's employer) and the OSA itself. Neither of these sources are independent of Kolodziejski, have a clear vested interest in them, are promotional in nature, and so notability is not established using them. Also, although somewhat downplayed, WP:PROF#General notes agrees with this requirement mentioning about: one or more of the notability criteria above have been verified through independent sources. -- Netoholic @ 11:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 11:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• What a load of croc. An award is given by the conferring organisation. This is the best source for factual truth. Who in hell thinks this is about vested interest. When you consider an organisation that confers awards not reliable, go elsewhere. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 11:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The link to the OSA primary source is reliable, but alone does not establish WP:Notability because it is not WP:INDEPENDENT. Per WP:SPIP: Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability and Independent sources are also needed to guarantee a neutral article can be written. -- Netoholic @ 11:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A non-independent source would be Leslie Kolodziejski writing about herself, or a close associate/family member writing a self-published text. The OSA is a large professional society; they do not have an "axe to grind" when it comes to Kolodziesjki, and stating which scientists the OSA conferred a fellowship upon is not self-promotion by Kolodziejski, nor by the OSA; it is a simple statement of fact. None of the reasons for having WP:IS (as spelled out quite clearly in the opening paragraphs there) apply. You appear to be really deep into WP:FORCEDINTERPRET territory here. Markus Pössel (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Elected fellowship of this learned society is not a self-promotional activity, and the criteria are public[1]. This satisfies in itself WP:ACADEMIC but the named chairs strengthen the case to make it totally unambiguous. DWeir (talk) 11:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I made this page. Hi again Netoholic She's a Professor at MIT, which alone would warrant a page if she was a man. Where would you expect to write about someone becoming a Fellow of the OSA, other than the OSA and the MIT site? Jesswade88 (talk) 11:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - All of the above. --SolidStateHeini (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability is not a core policy, as the nomination mistakenly says. It's not even a policy; it's a guideline and so explictly says that it is "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". It's common sense that it's reasonable for us to cover a full professor at MIT. The nomination's erroneous wikilawyering is contrary to WP:FORCEDINTERPRET and seems to be part of a developing pattern of harassment. Andrew D. (talk) 11:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair point. I was kind of still updating the rationale when this out-of-the-blue inundation of votes suddenly came in. I've corrected the rationale to point to core policy WP:Verifiability#Notability which says If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. -- Netoholic @ 11:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Nice try but that section of WP:V is a list of other policies and guidelines. That doesn't make them all core policy too. Andrew D. (talk) 12:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I share Netoholic's WP:BLP concerns here regarding sourcing and use of sources. I don't think she passes GNG per my BEFORE. I am uncertain whether OSA Fellow is sufficient for NPROF(3) (it very well might however). Running through her publications (h-index of around 17? though not first named author on the highly-cited ones) NPROF(1) seems plausible (need to further evaluate). However, by previously holding a named-chair in MIT she passes NPROF(5). As the subject passes PROF (which does not require GNG), and since Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup (in relation to the BLP/sourcing issues) - this is a keep.Icewhiz (talk) 11:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Icewhiz: There must be an independent source out there that says that she was a named-chair in MIT... right? -- Netoholic @ 12:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a source independent of Leslie Kolodziejski stating that fact, namely MIT itself. And you're in blatant violation of WP:POINT, too. Markus Pössel (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MIT is not independent (employer). @Netoholic: There might (and it might appear in all sorts of journal articles). However, WP:NPROF is different from all other bio SNGs in that it "This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc. and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline". MIT (as is the Optical Society) is a RS for named chairs by MIT. NPROF doesn't require independent sources. Your argument would have been correct on nearly every other type of bio - however specifically for NPROF - once you can reliability (even with a non-independent primary, yet reliable, source) show the subject passes one of the NPROF criteria - they pass the notability guideline. This may or may not be misguided - however the place to discuss that is in NPROF and the Village pump - not on an individual article. Icewhiz (talk) 12:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: WP:Verifiability#Notability is core policy and says "If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". This article has no independent sources. We should not haven an article on it. I tried repeatedly to leave cleanup tags about this issue. They were removed multiple times, so AfD became the next step. -- Netoholic @ 12:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's really just a placeholder to Wikipedia:Notability which includes WP:NPROF (which doesn't have the requirement). However I can trivallally satisfy independent reliable here - any citation in a journal paper (of which there are quite a few) of one of our subject's journal papers is an independent reliable source. It's a passing mention - but still satisfies that sentence. Icewhiz (talk) 12:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those are sources forthe work - the author is largely irrelevant and would only be a namedrop. Trivial, indeed.... and they say I am wikilawyering. Wikipedia relies on the concept of "significant coverage" ... not names mentioned in passing. -- Netoholic @ 12:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Generally the assertion above is correct. You are incorrect in academic bios - WP:NPROF. You are also incorrect in regards to WP:GEOLAND. Icewhiz (talk) 12:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Netoholic: Fyi but WP:N is a guideline, not policy. ——SerialNumber54129 11:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: Netaholic deciding that their personal interpretation trumps specific guidelines like WP:PROF because he perceives them to be in conflict with "core" policies appears to be the main problem here. I've told them that if they find a conflict, the proper way would be to bring it up on the relevant discussion pages and strive for a consensus, but instead they chose to WP:POINT with this AfD here. FWIW, I think you are interpreting WP:IS too narrowly if you place MIT in the same category as Kolodziejski self-published texts or texts by her relatives and friends. None of the rationale laid out in the justification for why we need WP:IS applies here. The criterion is: is the source so dependent on the subject that we must expect undue influence of the subject's own view, self-promotion and other abuses. That is clearly not the case for using MIT as a source about the fact that Kolodziejski held a specific named chair. Markus Pössel (talk) 12:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, SN54129, I've corrected the link to WP:Verifiability#Notability. -- Netoholic @ 12:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep as per DWeir. Furthermore, the nominating user appears to be WP:POLSHOPing by attempting to make his personal non-consensus interpretation of a policy override a criterion that is stated in WP:PROF, explicitly listing the admissability of sources. The user has been made aware of this (see this discussion), has also been made aware that if he or she thinks there is a policy contradiction they should take it up using the established procedure and establish a consensus; instead, they continue to override WP:PROF deliberately. Since this appears to be a pattern for the user's recent notability tags and AfDs (e.g. here, here, here), and there is related disruptive behaviour such as attempting to move a Wikiproject page out of the project space against the will of the participants, and also a worrying pattern that the user's energies in this respect appear to be directed very specifically against women in science (raising flags of possible issues of discrimination), could some administrators please look into this? Markus Pössel (talk) 11:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) @Markus Pössel: No, they will not; the nomination is sound, a WP:BEFORE has clearly been performed, and now it is being discussed. You are welcome, however, to file at WP:ANI, but be mindful of whether you may be perceived of perhaps having cast aspersions or not assuming good faith. Happy editing! ——SerialNumber54129 12:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I assume administrators will decide themselves whether to look into this, but thank you for your opinion. I have tried hard to assume good faith, but given the overall pattern, and the user's replies to my pointers to WP:PROF and their explicit statement that they are deliberately setting what is written in WP:PROF, it's getting really, really difficult. Markus Pössel (talk) 12:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does having a cleanup tag visible for a couple of hours on the day of the article's creation really satisfy WP:BEFORE (in particular, C) and WP:GF? DWeir (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since before is proven by a nomination and not tags, then, clearly yes. I suggest you read it. Goodbye. ——SerialNumber54129 12:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:BEFORE C3 has definitely not been followed. There is a (small) discussion raising the notability issue on Talk:Leslie_Kolodziejski, and User:Netoholic has demonstrably not raised his points there, nor participated in any other discussion on that talk page. That is a clear WP:BEFORE fail. Furthermore, User:Netoholic was perfectly aware of the fact that his criteria for nominating this were controversial; I know that because I had just that discussion with him within a few minutes before he decided to make that nomination. Markus Pössel (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: Also, I have followed your advice that WP:ANI is the proper place to bring this up; thanks! My submission is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Netoholic Markus Pössel (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article is informative and clear, person is sufficiently notable to have been awarded a fellowship (in addition to being a Prof at MIT) therefore I think this article benefits Wikipedia and should stay put JoBrodie (talk) 12:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:PROF as mentioned by several individuals above. Netoholic, I'm sensing a trend that your view of notability policy/guidelines are not in line with the general consensus. Maybe take your thoughts to Village Pump rather than repeatedly nominating articles that are not likely to be deleted. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Page is clear, brief and meets notability criteria (professor at MIT, fellowship winner, an Alfred P. Sloan Foundation award, served on editorial boards, etc.) Soulsinsync (talk) 13:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have place a notavote template above as this AfD has been publicized outside on Twitter.Icewhiz (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per NPROF, whose guidelines make it very difficult to write articles using acceptable sources, but them's the rules. Natureium (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As others have noted here, WP:PROF explicitly states that the sources used here (e.g. statements of a scientific society about who is a fellow) are sufficient to establish that their criteria have been met. Markus Pössel (talk) 14:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This obviously meets notability criteria. If the issue is with source independence, make that argument instead. Battleofalma (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:NACADEMIC states that academics meeting any one of a list of criteria are considered notable. Criterion 3 is "The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the IEEE)." A Fellow of the IEEE "cannot be applied for directly by the member – instead the candidate must be nominated by others." The Fellow of the Optical Society, is similarly highly selective, as per the wiki page, it requires one to be "nominated by a peer group of other current, OSA Fellows. Review of the nomination is then passed to the OSA Fellow Members Committee." The Optical Society is a "major scholarly society". Thus Leslie Kolodziejski meets WP:NACADEMIC, as do all other Fellows of the Optical Society. In the specific criteria notes on WP:ACADEMIC, it states that "For documenting that a person has been elected member or fellow ... publications of the electing institution are considered a reliable source." Thus the reference given in Leslie Kolodziejski's article is sufficient. Scottkeir (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep: For some independent coverage of her work, there's [2] and [3], but regardless she clearly satisfies NACADEMIC. (I endorse Thsmi002's comment, though WP:VPP is a waste as there's roughly zero chance of the presumed notability at the SNG being tightened) ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~
• Keep The subject clearly meets the notability criteria and the notice for deletion should be removed immediately. Srsval (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2019 (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.