Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Eszter Hargittai: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:26, 21 January 2006 editEndomion (talk | contribs)5,600 editsm →[]← Previous edit Latest revision as of 22:41, 30 April 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(28 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
<!--
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result of the debate was '''Keep'''. --]]]] 00:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

===]=== ===]===
Improperly (in my opinion this is apparently disputed) speedied under CSD:A7 now listed for due process &nbsp;]]] 01:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC) Improperly (in my opinion this is apparently disputed) speedied under CSD:A7 now listed for due process &nbsp;]]] 01:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


* '''Keep''' recipient of the Woodrow Wilson Scholarship, Notable internet sociologist interviewed by the BBC and ]. Quoted by the ], ], ], ], and ]. Mentioned in ] during hearings on the ]. Considered one of the prominent experts on "the Internet and its social effects" which I believe (have to check) was the subject of her dissertation for her ] Ph.D in Sociology. Currently a professor at ] and Faculty Fellow of the Institute for Policy Research at that university. &nbsp;]]] 01:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC) * '''Keep''' recipient of the Woodrow Wilson Scholarship, Notable internet sociologist interviewed by the BBC and ]. Quoted by the ], ], ], ], and ]. Mentioned in ] during hearings on the ]. Considered one of the prominent experts on "the Internet and its social effects" which I believe (have to check) was the subject of her dissertation for her ] Ph.D in Sociology. Currently a professor at ] and Faculty Fellow of the Institute for Policy Research at that university. &nbsp;]]] 01:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


*'''Delete''' being interviewed or quoted doesn't make one notable, getting a scholarship doesn't make one notable. Being an adjunct professor is not notable. This person is on a tenure-track, and when she gets there maybe that will be notable. ] 02:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' being interviewed or quoted doesn't make one notable, getting a scholarship doesn't make one notable. Being an adjunct professor is not notable. This person is on a tenure-track, and when she gets there maybe that will be notable. ] 02:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 8: Line 15:
*'''Keep''' - I'd disagree: being interviewed or quoted DOES make one notable. You seem to be suggesting, ], that for academics the ONLY measure of notability is tenure. I'd disagree; it's only one measure. —] (]:]) 03:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep''' - I'd disagree: being interviewed or quoted DOES make one notable. You seem to be suggesting, ], that for academics the ONLY measure of notability is tenure. I'd disagree; it's only one measure. —] (]:]) 03:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


:::'''Comment''' Not to be a WikiLawyer or anything, but the guide for notability says, "Professors are not notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field of interest." This is a high bar to clear. The contributions of Eszter Hargittai seem to consist of writing a dissertation on the internet and being the media's on-call expert on internet issues. Now if she had ''invented'' the internet like Al Gore that would be a horse of a different color. ] 03:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC) :'''Comment''' Not to be a WikiLawyer or anything, but the guide for notability says, "Professors are not notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field of interest." This is a high bar to clear. The contributions of Eszter Hargittai seem to consist of writing a dissertation on the internet and being the media's on-call expert on internet issues. Now if she had ''invented'' the internet like Al Gore that would be a horse of a different color. ] 03:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

::I'd disagree with a reading of those guidelines that implies that professors have to clear a higher bar than non-professors. To clarify, I don't think she clears the notability bar by very much, but I think she clears it. The article in its current state is way too vanity, though. —] (]:]) 03:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
:::What makes you call it vanity, as I'm the one who rewrote it? &nbsp;]]] 23:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


*'''Delete''' one interview does not make you notable. --] 03:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' one interview does not make you notable. --] 03:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Weak keep''' A fairly close call but quite a lot on Google Scholar and the media stuff just about tips the balance for me. ] ] 03:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' ] 04:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

* '''Keep''' If you check the recent history, you'll see deletions of references to other interviews. Then people come back and say there's only one interview. I think one reference is enough for an entry, but the whole procedure seems problematic to me ] 06:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC) (originally created entry)
* '''Keep''' per ALKIVAR. --] 08:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' -- ]<small>|]</small> 09:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - Notable person ] 14:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''weak keep''' and good catch by Alkivar. ] <sup>]]</sup>/<sub>]]</sub> ] '']'' 23:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. ...as per nominator? ] 01:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', passes ] unless we penalize her for being a professor. ] 08:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' fails ]; just one of the millions of unnotable academics around the globe. Untenured to boot! ] 20:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' appears to fail ]. I do note that some ''claims'' have been as without ], but in the absence of references to support these claims, the removal was proper. I'd also note to there appear to be several pure votes in this discussion. To simply say "keep" or even "keep, notable" does not provide a testable hypothesis. Finally I've removed some links per ]. - ]]] 07:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
**Those claims were removed as "vague and trivial" not as lacking citation, which at least some of them have. I have replaced them as they demonstrate that her ideas have a wide audience. ] 07:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
***Please remember that ] is not negotiable. Right now the ''only'' claim that is supported is the BBC one. If these claims are correct, than provide some evidence. Why is that even an issue? - ]]] 07:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
****I regard university websites as reliable published sources. ] 07:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
*****The personal pages of staff are mostly writtne ''by'' that staff member, and in this event still do not provide a link to where exactly it is that these "quotes" appeared. The fact that more time is being spent over the unsupported material rather than simply providing the evidence asked for is worrying. - ]]] 08:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
******I don't think university staff are likely to lie about themselves on their personal pages, your opinion may differ. Removing credible claims without trace does not aid the purpose of determining whether users would value access to information about this person or not. ] 08:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
******Here's where I point to someone doing something and sigh deeply in thanks. - ]]] 08:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Claims of non-notability are not very convincing, and tenure would make a very bad criterion. -- ] 00:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' per Dlyons493 ] <small>(] | ])</small> 17:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>

Latest revision as of 22:41, 30 April 2022

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 of the debate was Keep. --Deathphoenix 00:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Eszter Hargittai

Improperly (in my opinion this is apparently disputed) speedied under CSD:A7 now listed for due process  ALKIVAR™ 01:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete being interviewed or quoted doesn't make one notable, getting a scholarship doesn't make one notable. Being an adjunct professor is not notable. This person is on a tenure-track, and when she gets there maybe that will be notable. Ruby 02:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'd disagree: being interviewed or quoted DOES make one notable. You seem to be suggesting, Ruby, that for academics the ONLY measure of notability is tenure. I'd disagree; it's only one measure. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 03:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment Not to be a WikiLawyer or anything, but the guide for notability says, "Professors are not notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field of interest." This is a high bar to clear. The contributions of Eszter Hargittai seem to consist of writing a dissertation on the internet and being the media's on-call expert on internet issues. Now if she had invented the internet like Al Gore that would be a horse of a different color. Ruby 03:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd disagree with a reading of those guidelines that implies that professors have to clear a higher bar than non-professors. To clarify, I don't think she clears the notability bar by very much, but I think she clears it. The article in its current state is way too vanity, though. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 03:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
What makes you call it vanity, as I'm the one who rewrote it?  ALKIVAR™ 23:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


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.