- 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 under WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 19:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Mary Lou Zoback
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Mary Lou Zoback ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Misusing Wikipedia as LinkedIn. Article fails WP:NACADEMIC – none of the subject's academic achievements warrant an encyclopaedia article. External links are used incorrectly and appear promotional.
This is one of a number of biographies of questionable notability added by Rlhuffine. — kashmīrī TALK 20:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Science. — kashmīrī TALK 20:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per
WP:SK #3: "The nomination is completely erroneous. No accurate deletion rationale has been provided". National Academy member is a very clear pass of
WP:PROF#C3 and AGU fellow and GSA fellow also likely give passes themselves.
Arthur L. Day Medal is a likely pass of #C2. Heavy citations on Google Scholar pass #C1. Nominator's
WP:VAGUEWAVE at WP:PROF, in the face of these obvious passes, make clear the superficiality of the nomination and lack of
WP:BEFORE performed by the nominator. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 20:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- SK#3 refers to situations when no rationale has been provided, and not when you disagree with the rationale provided. SK does not apply here. Also, per WP:PROF,
An article's assertion that the subject passes this guideline is not sufficient.
As you can see, the subject's claimed Academy membership is unsourced, and anyway the vast majority of quoted sources are her employers' websites while we need good sources independent from the subject. — kashmīrī TALK 21:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)- SK3 applies when no accurate deletion rationale has been provided. There is nothing in its wording about only applying when there is no rationale at all. And there is nothing in any notability guideline, PROF included, about requiring the sources to already be in the article. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 21:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, but the rationale here is pretty accurate – you just happen to disagree with it (which is fine). — kashmīrī TALK 21:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
there is nothing in any notability guideline, PROF included, about requiring the sources to already be in the article
Poor me, I thought that WP:V is a core policy. — kashmīrī TALK 21:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)- Does this mean that you don't understand the distinction between notability and verifiability? Also, WP:DINC. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- Does this mean that you attempted and failed to verify her membership in the National Academy of Sciences? pburka ( talk) 21:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- SK3 applies when no accurate deletion rationale has been provided. There is nothing in its wording about only applying when there is no rationale at all. And there is nothing in any notability guideline, PROF included, about requiring the sources to already be in the article. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 21:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- I do not believe that the nomination for possible deletion is superficial/VAGUEWAVE. WP:BEFORE was met, but apologies for not explicitly listing all justifications in the tag. Note that the Talk page for this article includes further explanation of the nomination. Also see discussion by other authors on this page in support of deletion. Article is strongly embellished/promotional and some of the main justifications for Wikipedia:Notability are unverifiable or no longer valid (subject is not listed as a Stanford professor; subject stopped serving on U.S. NWTRB several years ago, despite prior article text implying active participation; others). Tensorsum ( talk) 04:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- SK#3 refers to situations when no rationale has been provided, and not when you disagree with the rationale provided. SK does not apply here. Also, per WP:PROF,
- Speedy keep. National Academy of Sciences satisfies WP:NPROF#3 and the Day Medal may satisfy WP:ANYBIO#1. pburka ( talk) 21:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Meets NACADEMIC as member of the National Academy of Sciences. Cullen328 ( talk) 23:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Per member of National Academy of Sciences, in many scientific encyclopedias, many publications, many interviews, etc. See GEOPHYSICIST HONORED BY NATIONAL ACADEMY: [Manatee Edition] GREER, BUBBLES. Sarasota Herald Tribune; Sarasota, Fla. [Sarasota, Fla]. 18 Aug 1996: 2.B. [2] for news article about her election to NAS. Also the number of genuine ebsco hits [3] by her/about her is about the highest I've ever seen in a AFD. Feels like missing some WP:BEFORE (besides the existing cites in article--bad formatting isn't a criteria for deletion.). Skynxnex ( talk) 23:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Andre 🚐 02:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep
Delete. Agree that article does have credible claim of significancy for reasons given by @ David Eppstein; therefore, article is not proposed for speedy deletion per Wikipedia:A7. However, does not appear to meet Wikipedia:BIO, thus warranting deletion. First, much of subject's notability is temporary/transient/not sustained ( Wikipedia:NTEMP and Wikipedia:NSUSTAINED), including prior participation on U.S. NWTRB. Subject appears mostly or completely inactive in research for several years per Google Scholar (aside from conference abstracts a few years ago), which would be the source of subject's notoriety. Second, I do not agree with the implication above (@ David Eppstein, @ Skynxnex) that any NAS member warrants an encyclopedia entry. Per Wikipedia:ANYBIO, "...meeting one or more [of the notability criteria such as having won an award] does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Some prominence in field, especially temporary prominence from years ago, is not sufficient notoriety on its own to warrant a bio page, especially one written like an autobiography. Tensorsum ( talk) 03:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)- That's surprisingly badly reasoned for someone who has been here for more than a few days. Albert Einstein and Alan Turing have been mostly or completely inactive in research for several years. And you may not agree that the night sky is dark, but the fact remains that
WP:PROF does not depend on
WP:BIO or
WP:ANYBIO and explicitly lists membership in the National Academy of Sciences as a sufficient reason by itself to declare someone notable. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 05:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- If we accepted
Tensorum's reasoning, we would also be debating the deletion of
Isaac Newton who hasn't published a scientific paper in 500 years. Don't get me started on that Archimedes guy. It is too late at night to count the centuries.
Cullen328 (
talk) 06:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- Nope. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST is not a valid argument in a deletion discussion, and I hope I don't have to explain you the difference between famous scholars of ancient Greece and today's minor academics with few independent sources and little in terms of published work. — kashmīrī TALK 08:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- @ David Eppstein, @ Cullen328: I think you've missed my point. The point is that subject is not Isaac Newton. Moreover, whether you agree with them or not, WP:NTEMP and WP:NSUSTAINED are established Wikipedia criteria for determining notoriety. I of course agree with you that not having written a paper in 300 years does not matter for someone whose work is as significant to present thought as Newton's. But these Wikipedia guidelines are meant to allow us to determine which subjects have only transient importance, and that is absolutely relevant here. I don't have especially strong opinions about whether subject is notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. I simply argue for the reasons above that subject does not achieve Wikipedia:BIO. If being a member of NAS and/or achieving professional awards are sufficient alone to warrant a bio page, then there would be a great number of pages to add, often for people whose contributions are of dubious impact for Wikipedia. I hope that the commenters who argue for Keep can address some of these issues to everyone's satisfaction, ideally without the unnecessary personal attacks and sarcasm. It's obviously not ideal practice (or helpful to the discussion) to dubiously accuse an editor of WP:VAGUEWAVE and not following WP:BEFORE but then attack their (and others') reasoning/justification. Tensorsum ( talk) 14:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
David Eppstein Can you please stop commenting on contributors? Your repeated PA aren't at all helpful in the discussion. A person's edit count or account age are utterly irrelevant to the subject of this discussion. —
kashmīrī
TALK 08:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Kashmiri: Given that you immediately followed up this request by a PA on another contributor (
Special:Diff/1107678513), I don't see why I should take your request to not participate seriously. But since you seem to have failed to understand, let me spell out more explicitly what I meant by the part about length of contributions. If such a comment had been left by a day-old contributor, I would have taken it as simple trolling and ignored it. Tensorsum's longer history here makes clear that the comment was intended in good faith and therefore more worthy of response. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 17:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- You are not expected to ridicule anyone's reasoning or length of editing. Try to
comment on content, not on contributors
, even when you disagree with them. — kashmīrī TALK 09:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)- If you somehow believe that comments like "intended in good faith and therefore more worthy of response" are intended to ridicule, I don't see the point in continued engagement with you. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- You are not expected to ridicule anyone's reasoning or length of editing. Try to
- @
Kashmiri: Given that you immediately followed up this request by a PA on another contributor (
Special:Diff/1107678513), I don't see why I should take your request to not participate seriously. But since you seem to have failed to understand, let me spell out more explicitly what I meant by the part about length of contributions. If such a comment had been left by a day-old contributor, I would have taken it as simple trolling and ignored it. Tensorsum's longer history here makes clear that the comment was intended in good faith and therefore more worthy of response. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 17:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- If we accepted
Tensorum's reasoning, we would also be debating the deletion of
Isaac Newton who hasn't published a scientific paper in 500 years. Don't get me started on that Archimedes guy. It is too late at night to count the centuries.
Cullen328 (
talk) 06:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- I still don't see any policy-based reason (or subjective reason) for deletion. If I'm not mistaken,
WP:NTEMP is not about the meaning of temporary/transient notability but rather
once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage
. The NAS membership meets to WP:PROF, as others have mentioned:Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. ... 3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences ....
(formatting in original). - And even more so, I believe she would meet
WP:GNG based on the sources in the article which are good and what I saw with my ebsco search. But here are some specific ones
- A to Z of Earth Scientists, Facts On File, Gates, 2009, pp 303. Is a multi-paragraph bio.
gbook link. (Relevant pull quote:
Mary Lou Zoback's service to the profession is unparalleled for someone so early in his or her career.
) - Encyclopedia of World Scientists, Facts on File, Oakes, 2007, pp 798. Same publisher but a different, distinct multi-paragraph bio. gbook link.
- American Women of Science Since 1900 vol 1, ABC-CLIO, Wayne, 2011, pp 997-998. Another just over one page bio covering her career. gbook link. (Already in article but I think important to note.)
- Uncovering Plate Tectonics, Teacher Created Materials, 2007, pp 26. A book aimed at school-age children but it devotes a page to photo/brief bio of her. gbook link.
- A to Z of Earth Scientists, Facts On File, Gates, 2009, pp 303. Is a multi-paragraph bio.
gbook link. (Relevant pull quote:
- I think the totality of her memberships (NAS, president of Geological Society of America (which seems to meet WP:NACADEMIC#6, which is enough by itself as well), James B. Macelwane Medal of the AGU (which has an article so is not unnotable), Arthur L. Day Medal (likewise), and Public Service Award from the GSA) easily meets WP:ANYBIO 1 and NACADEMIC#2; coverage of her work on the World Stress Map project, additional publications, and she has been the primary person quoted in news articles about earth quakes in three distinct time periods, meets ANYBIO 2; and the fact she's in enough encyclopedias of science and other listings effectively meets ANYBIO 3.
especially one written like an autobiography
is not a reason to delete an article.unverifiable or no longer valid (subject is not listed as a Stanford professor; subject stopped serving on U.S. NWTRB several years ago, despite prior article text implying active participation; others)
the things that are verifiable easily meet notability requirements and "no longer valid" is not a reason to support no notability because of WP:NTEMP. Skynxnex ( talk) 14:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)- These points are good (thank you for being civil). They and some above incline me more toward Keep. Will continue watching this page over the coming days for alternate views.
Tensorsum (
talk) 15:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Tensorsum FYI you should strike out your original !vote if you change your mind. (like this:
<del>'''Delete'''</del>) Madeline ( part of me) 18:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)- Thanks, @ Maddy from Celeste. I'll change to Keep as you suggested based on the general consensus of commenters here. I was waiting for more comments here before making up my mind. Keeping this article seems marginal to me from a more common-sense reading (what exactly has the subject contributed to science and society that merits an encyclopedia entry? Leadership many years ago on a world stress map?), but I am persuaded by several commenters (@ Skynxnex, @ David Eppstein, @ Cullen328) that the subject clearly meets at least the letter of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, mostly because of citation counts, society awards and Academies membership. Tensorsum ( talk) 16:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- @
Tensorsum FYI you should strike out your original !vote if you change your mind. (like this:
- However, an issue that continues to trouble me is that the reading of WP notability expressed on this page would seem to invite many more academic bio pages. There are a great many people who meet at least one of the WP:PROF criteria. Thoughts? Tensorsum ( talk) 15:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
-
Tensorsum, why would you be troubled by the fact that NPROF may invite many more academic bio pages? This is a project to build an encyclopedia after all, not to tear it down.
Cullen328 (
talk) 19:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- @ Cullen328 It's a philosophical question. While trying not to tear down an encyclopedia, how much noise drowns out the signal in WP pages? You make a good argument that the subject meets the letter of the notability guidelines (memberships, awards, citations), even though no one has made a strong case for subject's substantive, tangible contributions. Based on this discussion I'll probably add more WP bio pages. This discussion may be useful for adjudicating WP notability questions in the future more broadly. Tensorsum ( talk) 17:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- There are a large number of academic biographies on Wikipedia that would not pass the general WP:GNG that easily pass WP:PROF and at least one passes through AfC every day. This is a good thing because these academics are people who shape our lives through their research in untold ways. Gusfriend ( talk) 22:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
-
Tensorsum, why would you be troubled by the fact that NPROF may invite many more academic bio pages? This is a project to build an encyclopedia after all, not to tear it down.
Cullen328 (
talk) 19:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- These points are good (thank you for being civil). They and some above incline me more toward Keep. Will continue watching this page over the coming days for alternate views.
Tensorsum (
talk) 15:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- That's surprisingly badly reasoned for someone who has been here for more than a few days. Albert Einstein and Alan Turing have been mostly or completely inactive in research for several years. And you may not agree that the night sky is dark, but the fact remains that
WP:PROF does not depend on
WP:BIO or
WP:ANYBIO and explicitly lists membership in the National Academy of Sciences as a sufficient reason by itself to declare someone notable. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 05:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy keep: Easily meets WP:PROF. Gusfriend ( talk) 08:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- Snow keep. A member of the National Academy of Sciences is surely notable per WP:NPROF C3 -- indeed, this is one of the examples given of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society. (And there good reasons she was so elected; the citation record is a clear pass of WP:NPROF C1.) Would a passing administrator consider putting this discussion out of its misery? The only delete !vote is clearly contrary to our notability guidelines. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 08:31, 2 September 2022 (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.