Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:37, 4 February 2019

Clarice Phelps

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Clarice Phelps (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 Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages 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}}.

De-prodded. Not close to passing NPROF or GNG. The "2017 YWCA Knoxville Tribute to Women in the Women technology, research, and innovation category" is not a significant award. Sources in the article do not establish notability: (numbering per this version)

ref1+ref13(duplicate) - knoxnews - local source. Single paragraph on her.

ref2 - tnstate alumni newspaper - contains only "Clarice E. Phelps, 2003" - possibly a WP:BLPPRIMARY issue (as one can not be sure this is the same Phelps).

ref3 - tnstate 2003 commencement notice - same issue as ref2.

ref4 - utsports - again a local source. Single line on Phelps.

ref5 - tennesseeaquaticproject - contains only "Clarice Salone, (MLK) Tennessee State University, U.S. Navy Officer" - again - a misuse of a PRIMARYish source for a BLP - we can't know this is the same individual.

ref6 - nuclear.engr.utexas.edu - ditto - single line where a Clarice Phelps is listed as a MS student - no way to ascertain this is the same Phelps.

ref7 - alumnius.net listing - probably self-published, and not in-depth regardless.

ref8 - www.navysite.de - probably self-published - and a single line regardless.

ref9+ref10 (duplicate) - ORNL - not terribly in-depth bio/profile at her employer ORNL. Not independent.

ref11 - her name as a co-author on a conference poster.

ref12 - ORNL - her employer - brief PR release - single paragraph on Phelps following her 2017 Knoxville YWCA Tribute Award.

So - while we do have a bit of a WP:REFBOMB (including two duplicates) - none of the references in the article establish notability. Some are misuse of PRIMARYish references for a BLP. In my BEFORE I was unable to find anything significant on this Phelps (the google-book hits are all for different people with this name with the possible exception of a namedrop in a long thank-you list in the acknowledgements of a 2017 book). Icewhiz (talk) 07:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Note to closer - please note WP:CANVASSing on twitter - for this AfD.Icewhiz (talk) 08:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

  And more canvassing - . Icewhiz (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

  Hurrah! Yes some of us long term contributors talk about our Misplaced Pages interests on Twitter. It's part of having a community. Thanks for noticing. --Fæ (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

And as a long-term Misplaced Pages user, Fæ, I'm sure you're familiar with the inappropriate notification guideline, please can you explain how your tweet (archive) can be considered appropriate in terms of message and transparency as defined by the aforementioned guideline? SITH (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Not just a long term contributor, I worked on a lot of project policies. The canvassing guideline in no way whatsoever, makes any assertion that stops our contributors tweeting about their interests, or about what they are currently doing on Misplaced Pages. You are conflating notifications with generally posting off wiki on social media, in addition you are conflating "stealth" canvasing off-wiki with public and clearly open tweeting. I'll presume good faith by concluding that you might not understand exactly how tweets work. It is bad form to misuse Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines to attempt to censor or intimidate free speech off wiki. So, you know, it's best not to do that. --Fæ (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Fæ, I'm not trying to intimidate off wiki, thanks for assuming good faith, I'm not on Twitter myself so I have little clue how it works, I assumed the audience was pre-set and not open and public. My apologies. SITH (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Twitter is a semi-public medium - most tweets are public (with some caveats - users you block can't see your tweets when they are logged in + private tweets also exist), but they are seen (mostly - unless you search for them) by your followers. While everyone is entailed for free speech, if a tweet is out there that - "The @Misplaced Pages page of Dr Clarice Phelps (https://en.wikipedia.org/Clarice_Phelps …), researcher @ORNL, has been nominated for deletion because the references fail to establish notability. 🙏🏽 Please vote https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Clarice_Phelps … and help improve the biography. #BHM #womeninSTEM - calling for your followers to vote - then without getting into whether this is sanction-able or not (and I shall note I did not take this to AN/I - though there is a similar thread - Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Clear stealth canvassing by User:Fredrick eagles on twitter canvassing there) - it affects the AfD close - the closer here needs to be aware that the voters are composed not only of users who regularly participate in AfDs (via regular AfD publication methods) but rather also of users who got here following prodding/advertising via tweets. Icewhiz (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep – for me she gets over the notability bar, specifically:

1. Her employer (ORNL) is the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. where she is a project manager and researcher.
2. This ORNL write-up does not appear to be a source currently in the article, but it's in-depth and has a short video: (the ORNL cites currently are and )
3. I think we can know she is the same person as Clarice Salone because that's what her ORCID says
4. A few Goggle Scholar hits _ich 08:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: - authoring a few papers is not sufficient for NPROF (nor is being a project manager and researcher at ORNL). None of the other sources you presented are independent, in-depth, secondary sources (notably - her employer is not an independent source) - and thus do not establish WP:GNG. Please cite a specific notability guideline or policy she meets. Icewhiz (talk) 08:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep The nomination is based on the idea of notability but that is not a policy while WP:ATD, WP:IAR, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE are four separate policies which all indicate that we should not be deleting this page. To consider the overall effect on the encyclopedia, consider an article which currently appears on the front page: Edward Stanley, who is lauded for his short playing career in which he "scored no runs, and took no catches or wickets". That's an entertaining short piece and I was especially impressed by the fine mustache sported by the subject. The article in question is somewhat different but is a worthy addition to the encyclopedia in other ways. To delete one but not the other would be systemic bias and we're better off keeping them both. Andrew D. (talk) 09:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

  WP:V and WP:NPOV are policy - and can not be met here given the lack of independent reliable sources, which is also a WP:BLP concern. WP:NOTSOAP is policy as well - the only bio possible here (and a very brief one at that) is based on ORNL PR / personal promotion.Icewhiz (talk) 11:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

  Not seeing any WP:V and WP:NPOV problems – everything seems to be well cited and the language seems reasonably free of hype and peacock. The sources seem just as good as those for the cricketing major. How is that sportsmen and soldiers don't get attacked on the same basis? That's the systemic bias. Andrew D. (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

  WP:OSE, and poor OSE at that. This page, ignoring her name in a commencement list or a self-written line on navybuddies.com is sourced to ORNL PR - - there is not a single in-depth, secondary, reliable source. Our cricketer friend (who was also an army major and the inspector General of the Houssa Force in Lagos, Nigeria) mainly sourced to a book published in 2016 () - and, I'll note, seems a bit borderline in terms of notability (but at least has an independent secondary source which is possibly also reliable). How about you point to a single WP:INDEPTH, WP:SECONDARY, WP:INDEPENDENT source on this page (or better yet - two)? Icewhiz (talk) 12:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

  WP:OSE explains that "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". So sportmen, soldiers and scientists should be treated in a consistent way. Edward Stanley did his bit for the team and gets a place in Misplaced Pages because he was playing at the highest level. The subject in question did her bit for another team effort and that was at the highest level too. Both pages should stay. Andrew D. (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep She's exactly the sort of STEM role model we need - per, for example, https://www.ornl.gov/news/clarice-phelps-dedicated-service-science-and-community . I see nothing to be gained by the deletion of the article; en.wikipedia will not be improved by such an action. I see significant losses should the article be deleted: it would confirm our de facto commitment to systematic bias and our bureaucratic rules-based inflexibility. Icewhiz, you've made your point. Your time now would be better spent writing another female biog, than wikilawyering in this thread. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Plenty of encyclopaedic benefit here, so GNG can be rationalized, if anyone wishes to do that. Being overly literal with specific variations of the notability guidelines starts to look like wikilawyering to shore up systemic bias. --Fæ (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Reading arguments above. Agree with them --Kippelboy (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep: notwithstanding my objection to the Twitter canvassing, I think being on a team which discovers a chemical element is enough to pass GNG or BIO. I agree with the nominator insofar as it needs toning down a bit, but tone is a problem which seems to plague articles about academics. I'd also like to note that I don't agree with the above arguments for inclusion on the basis of Phelps being STEM role model, notability guidelines should be enough of a reason to include her on merits without resorting to identitarianism. SITH (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

  @StraussInTheHouse: - please look at Tennessine#Discovery to see just how wide this team was (multi-institution, multi-country). Announcements from the time - e.g. this do not mention Phelps. Phelps was involved in some of the pre-cursor chemical work in ONRL (purification of Bk-249) - part of a very large team in ONRL. If we were to confer notability on this basis - then this would extend notability to hundreds, possibly thousands, of junior research workers involved in the wider effort here (and in similar projects). Icewhiz (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

  @Icewhiz: duly noted, I will look at all of the sources and come back and either reinstate or change my vote. Thanks, SITH (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Redirect to Tennessine#Discovery: after going through the sources one by one and doing both online and offline searches for more sources, I agree with Icewhiz's initial analysis of the sources. I'd love to vote keep but the only grounds for doing so now are not based on notability but on personal feelings. I'm withdrawing my keep !vote but leaving the comment intact to ensure my objection to the canvassing is noted. SITH (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - She was part of a small team that helped discover an element - this is not trivial and I believe her contributions deserve a space on Misplaced Pages. I tried very hard to find references, and since the page was written, a few more can be found, and have been added. I have asked people to help improve the page on Twitter - I wasn't aware this kind of 'canvassing' was frowned upon, but am interested into what's wrong with it. Jesswade88 (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates