| Revision as of 01:34, 21 July 2016 editGreenMeansGo (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers64,324 edits adding header for potential future archive purposes← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:57, 21 July 2016 edit undoGreenMeansGo (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers64,324 edits →Inline improvement tags: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
| :::we're addressing a debate from a decade ago. Discussion of deletion is not done on a talk page. There's a process - an article is nominated and the subject is judged against notability criteria in their field, or failing that, WP:GNG. I don't doubt that this subject would pass GNG and thus likely warrants an article on wiki (which is why I didn't nominated it for AfD in 10/2015), I do think it suffers from COI issues and most definitely was not of neutral/objective tone at that time either. Any claim that is unreferenced has been slapped with a CN tag and internet references have been checked - those that fail to confirm any claims have been tagged so. As for the issue related to her comments included in the Nice attacks, I am advising those on the talk page of issues connected to the subject. ] (]) 01:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC) | :::we're addressing a debate from a decade ago. Discussion of deletion is not done on a talk page. There's a process - an article is nominated and the subject is judged against notability criteria in their field, or failing that, WP:GNG. I don't doubt that this subject would pass GNG and thus likely warrants an article on wiki (which is why I didn't nominated it for AfD in 10/2015), I do think it suffers from COI issues and most definitely was not of neutral/objective tone at that time either. Any claim that is unreferenced has been slapped with a CN tag and internet references have been checked - those that fail to confirm any claims have been tagged so. As for the issue related to her comments included in the Nice attacks, I am advising those on the talk page of issues connected to the subject. ] (]) 01:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC) | ||
| == Inline improvement tags == | |||
| Just putting this here as a record. The recent bombing of this article with more than a dozen inline tags for citation needed and failed verification is flatly disruptive and very nearly vandalism. Sources were easily found for nearly all of the information, and "verification failed" sources were easily found as an archive version. Verification did not "fail" if there was no attempt made to verify. ] 12:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:57, 21 July 2016
 | Biography: Science and Academia Start‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Justify
Can somebody justify why there is a Misplaced Pages page devoted to an assistant professor of political science who has yet to land a tenured faculty position? There are HUNDREDS of assistant professors in political science who have published articles and univeristy press books in their respective fields. There should be some compelling reason why Dr. Bloom's career and work merits special attention on Misplaced Pages. Otherwise, mark for deletion--seems suspiciously like self-advertising. Every assistant professor in political science, or in any academic field, cannot have their own Misplaced Pages page. That's what www.MYNAME.com domain registration is for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.14.179 (talk • contribs)
- I wrote the original article. If by "self-advertising" you mean that I am Mia Bloom: no I'm not. I agree with the assertion that an assistant professor is not notable. Mia Bloom wrote a book that perhaps deserves its own article and that made her notable too. ←Humus sapiens 19:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
i agree w/ first user. humus sapiens you bring up an excellent point--the book deserves its own article which means, by default, the prof is notable. BUT--there is no information provided regarding why this book deserves its own article. i assume that lots of assistant professors at lots of universities write books for tenure purposes. i also assume that, in following wiki policy, those that deserve their own pages are notable. so how do we know, as an uninformed audience, either the book or professor is notable?
following policies that other wiki debates have spawned, i'd like to see footnotes citing the importance of the book in terms of its reception, proof that the author is a "leading expert" as claimed in the text, and other evidence that makes this entry 'notable.' i think this is a perfectly fair comment by a non-specialist reader who has not heard of this woman in typical online or TV or radio chats or discussions or debates about suicide terrorism, but would be readily convinced if some hard evidence verified she is a 'leading expert'. and can we not cite book jackets or amazon.com reviews here? :-( bad experiences with those on wiki. in other words, there is some concern for neutrality and objectivity here.
if no hard external proof can be given, then i agree w/ OP--mark for deletion. and i think the standards of evidence here can be amicably conceded as standard verification policy--something i know humus sapiens would understand as a wiki administrator. 03:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- The article on the book is not written yet. Feel free to improve this or any other article. If you want to see any article removed, try WP:AFD. ←Humus sapiens 05:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I support deletion. Definitely has the look of self promotion. Especially since her "thoughts" on the Nice Attack somehow made the main article on the attack. 75.151.5.228 (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- You want this deleted to help your case in deleting that bit, or you actually think there's a problem with this article? Be honest. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:35, July 20, 2016 (UTC)
Every single professor I have ever had could have an article like this. There's no reason anyone would ever look up Mia Bloom, there's no reason anyone would ever want/need to know about her. This is not an encyclopedia entry, it's a puff piece. Sorry for being brusk, but you asked. 75.151.5.228 (talk) 13:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
"With research specialties in ethnic conflict, rape in war and child soldiers, Bloom was a term member of the Council on Foreign Relations from 2003-2008. She is known for her work on suicide terrorism, women and terrorism, children in terrorist groups, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Boko Haram in Nigeria, radicalization of European/American Muslims and militant women during the Troubles in Northern Ireland."
Sources for ANY of this? This seems to be the only thing making her an 'expert' on terrorism. 75.151.5.228 (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- I've put a 'cit needed' tag on that para, unless there is urgency, that's how to deal with uncited material. WP:AfD is where deletion is discussed. Pincrete (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- we're addressing a debate from a decade ago. Discussion of deletion is not done on a talk page. There's a process - an article is nominated and the subject is judged against notability criteria in their field, or failing that, WP:GNG. I don't doubt that this subject would pass GNG and thus likely warrants an article on wiki (which is why I didn't nominated it for AfD in 10/2015), I do think it suffers from COI issues and most definitely was not of neutral/objective tone at that time either. Any claim that is unreferenced has been slapped with a CN tag and internet references have been checked - those that fail to confirm any claims have been tagged so. As for the issue related to her comments included in the Nice attacks, I am advising those on the talk page of issues connected to the subject. Rayman60 (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Inline improvement tags
Just putting this here as a record. The recent bombing of this article with more than a dozen inline tags for citation needed and failed verification is flatly disruptive and very nearly vandalism. Sources were easily found for nearly all of the information, and "verification failed" sources were easily found as an archive version. Verification did not "fail" if there was no attempt made to verify. TimothyJosephWood 12:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Categories: