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 no consensus. Opinions are divided between deleting the article per WP:BIODEL, and keeping it because of the subject's notability. There's therefore no consensus for deletion. According to WP:BIODEL, "discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete" (italics in the original). In this case, I choose not to do so, because (a) the identity of the person requesting deletion is not verified (e.g. via WP:OTRS), and (b) the arguments for not deleting it are strong. As has been established, the article is mostly based on information publicly revealed and published on the Internet by Lisa Koonce herself, or with her consent. This makes the only reason why she would want to delete this article the fact that she can't exercise control over it. But we must not take this into consideration, because it would be contrary to our core policy of neutrality, as well as other principles of Wikipedia, to allow article subjects, or anyone else, exclusive control over our content.  Sandstein  12:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Koonce[edit]

Lisa Koonce (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)

Lisa Koonce has asked me to have this page removed as she does not want her life on the internet. I am the Marketing and Communications Manager for the Department of Accounting at the McCombs School of Business. Stockwellapril (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sorry, but unfortunately that is not a valid deletion argument. The article states that she has a named chair and this seems to be confirmed by her departmental website. Therefore she is notable under [[WP:ACADEMIC]). The article doesn't seem to contain any harmful information, either. --Randykitty (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BIODEL. A non-public figure may request deletion of one's Wikipedia article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree with Randykitty (talk · contribs) that the article doesn't appear to contain anything privacy-violating (e.g. date of birth, mother's maiden name etc which would be useful for identity theft). Assuming the information is accurate, there shouldn't be a problem with it as long as the subject is notable. I don't think that anyone could reasonably associate having a Wikipedia biography with endorsement of Wikipedia (this means that in practice some will but as with anything in life you can't legislate for idiots). Not sure about the notability however, despite the named chair. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment she's non-public and not terribly notable. I'd support deletion WP:BIODEL - but only under the condition that it was made unambiguous (to an admin, not to everyone) that it was her asking for this rather than a third party who could be anyone. I don't know the process for this. Neonchameleon (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm going to neutral for the moment. Presumably, Dr. Koonce would have to go through OTRS to confirm that this is indeed her personal wish. I'd also be interested to see what DGG thinks of this case. --Randykitty (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Going back to "keep", per DGG. --Randykitty (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per NinjaRobotPirate's comment, subject to validation of the request. stockwellapril's Wikipedia history is not particularly clean (sorry). We must respect Dr. Koonce's wishes but I suggest Wikipedia should confirm the validity of the request first (I don't know how that works). The page is otherwise fine (she is notable, no contentious info, etc). Could the page be courtesy blanked in the meantime? Ivanvector (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The notability is more than borderline notability , she holds an endowed chair at a university. Her life is already on the internet, and that by her own choice, because she prepared a profile in linkedin. She sat for an interview on her university paper, and that's her own choice also. She has her bio on her university site, and her full CV there also , but perhaps they forced her to do it against her will. But she has a lecture posted on flickr; of course that could have been taken against hew will also. . This being Texas, her grading scale is public , and so is her salary, which I will not link to. The only time I have every accepted following the choice of the subject is when the net result would be unfair. The principle of BLP is "do no harm" and I cannot see how an objective bio of someone in a relatively public position . based entirely on sourced publicly available data, can do it. If we removed on this basis, then we would end up with the bios of only those living people who liked their bios and wanted the publicity--in other words, a cheap replica of WhosWhoInAmerica, or, has been suggested, the bios of those people who support us. I would strongly be opposed to blanking during the discussion--that's appropriate when there's questionable material of some sort, but there isn't. (If on the other hand, there are significant reasons I am not aware of, the request should be sent to OTRS, but no such reasons have been even suggested. DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you admit this bio, which is based on publicly available info, is essentially a CV, except one she has no control over. Control. That's the key difference, isn't it, between all the different websites you listed where her info is available, and her page here. Anybody can edit this wikipedia article. Would you want your CV to be editable by everyone with internet access? By the way, putting her wishes aside, do you think the quality of the wiki is enhanced by hosting what amounts to academic bio webpages that are already available on universities' own websites? 2604:2000:FFC0:7B:CBF:5409:6EB4:DAB3 (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yjay argument doesn't hold. At least 80% of our articles are based on sources easily available on the web. That's not a reason to delete them. --Randykitty (talk) 06:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• My argument is based on the quality of the sources, not on the fact that they're available on the web. An article based on CVs will read like a CV. The result will not be an encyclopedia article. Thanks for your comment anyway. 2604:2000:FFC0:7B:CBF:5409:6EB4:DAB3 (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. GS h-index around 21 in a highly cited field probably passes WP:Prof#C1 plus chair. Credit to nom for declaring his COI. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment: There is no argument here as to Dr. Koonce's notability - she is certainly notable as DGG and Xxanthippe wisely discussed. This AfD is in response to a request (purportedly) from Dr. Koonce herself to have the page about her removed. Is she a significantly public figure to oppose a WP:BIODEL request on those grounds? I don't see any thorough discussion on Wikipedia about how to determine that. She is a Chair at a (private?) university, but is that a sufficiently public position? Prestigious, certainly, but would a student at her university be likely to recognize her name or identify her position, other than those in her own department? I don't know but I am leaning towards no. I will note that in the last 90 days the page recorded only 227 pagehits, of which 80 occurred after the article was nominated for AfD. Also, I respectfully reject the argument that having one's personal information published online qualifies one as a public figure, as in the age of free information and accountability this would qualify a staggeringly large and growing number of people as public figures. Ivanvector (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes, a staggeringly large number people's bios are, and if the information there can do harm the question becomes whether WP can do any harm beyond what is there elsewhere . But that's not the question here, since the information cannot do harm: the question is the absurd reason she gives, of wanting to remove her presence on the internet. Since it will be present none the less, and she has in some cases cooperating with her university & its newspaper in making her presence visible in the internet , it makes no sense to try remove it for WP to accomplish that purpose. It was asked "would you want your CV to be edited by people you had no control over"? It it is based on the same sources as what is public, no harm is done to me by it. If it is unfair or misrepresented or vandalized, we have excellent means of dealing with it, much more effective than most internet sites. DGG ( talk ) 21:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There seems to be no information in the article that does not already exist in web sources put in place by the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I understand what you're both saying and I'm not disagreeing with you. I see nothing in the article that could be considered even remotely harmful to Dr. Koonce, and if there was I would enthusiastically participate in repairing it. Even if there was contentious info here but it was backed up by a good citation, we would still keep it. But that's not the issue here. She is the subject of the article and she has requested its removal - I don't believe that WP:BIODEL requires that she have a good reason, or a rational or logical reason, or even a reason at all, she just happens to have given one (via nom). The only issue here is whether she is a sufficiently public figure that we can justify ignoring her request, and I believe the answer is no. Ivanvector (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to a policy or precedent that supports that? I am not aware of any. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I was linking to WP:BIODEL, which also has links to WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. They are not extensive policies, and I'm not familiar with any precedents. Wikipedia's definition of non-public figures is not particularly helpful here. Ivanvector (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However there is also a much more extensive policy on low-profile persons which seems like it applies here. Under "eminence": "holds a position of preeminence, power or authority in a field of research ... usually at more than a locally-significant level. Such a position ... is evidence of projection of self identity into the public consciousness." I would say that holding an endowed chair at an internationally recognized "elite" business school more than satisfies that definition. Therefore I agree we should respectfully decline Dr. Koonce's request and keep this article. Ivanvector (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I thought it might help if I added in the Contact Us page from McCombs to verify who I am: (blanked; see comment below) Lisa Koonce is trying to control her presence on the Internet and this page was created without her knowledge and she is frustrated she cannot control the content like our McCombs pages that I maintain. Also, in relation to my record not being very clean, that was several years ago. At the time I was submitting educational links that directly related to the pages. I had been instructed to do this as part of my job and when it was made clear by editors like you that it wasn't allowed on Wikipedia, I stopped and made certain the company pulled this activity from their social media plans.Stockwellapril (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing this and for doing that. I didn't mean to imply you were up to no good, and I apologize for compelling you to post a link with your personal info; editors should not have to do that. As a courtesy I have removed the link. There is a secure process for confirming your identity if that turns out to be necessary for some reason, but you've already disclosed your conflict of interest and that's really all that's necessary here.

We have very strict policies on biographies of living persons and editors are expected to take them seriously. The policy is extensive, but the key points are that all information must present a neutral point of view and that any information that is in any way likely to be challenged is backed up by very good reliable sources. You could think of Dr. Koonce's page as a curation of information that is publicly available. Part of the policy states that we do not honour deletion requests from public figures, and based on our discussion above the consensus appears to be that Dr. Koonce meets our definition. As such, her page is likely to remain. As for control, that is not entirely correct. Your best bet is to get familiar with our policies on conflicts of interest and to be very careful with that in mind, but you can absolutely participate. You can make noncontroversial edits to the page if you back it up with an independent source, and feel free to suggest improvements by going through the article's talk page. Ivanvector (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:BIODEL. DGG's refers to sources that most any professor in the United States would have. When the bio looks like a resume, i'm inclined to support a BIODEL request.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The h-index of 21 is above average for professors in the US and a bit over the borderline adopted in these Afds. (I wish we had better data). Xxanthippe (talk) 05:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I've never relied too much myself on the h-index number, but I understand why this one is subject to debate.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The significance of a h-index depends on the subject. 21 would not be notable in the biomedical sciences. In business, it would be. That it is is shown by the appointment to an endowed chair.This explicitly meets the requirement for WP:PROF, and by our normal standards there would be no further discussion. Someone who so clearly meets the standard is not borderline. Most professors in the US dod not hold endowed chairs, far from it. DGG ( talk ) 09:20, 22 December 2013 (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.