This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles
This article was created or improved as part of the Women in Red project in 2018. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles
Editathon article
This page was created during a WikiProject Women in Red editathon at the University of Edinburgh to encourage new editors and create missing articles about notable women in STEM fields. Please do not delete but instead offer constructive criticism as to how this article could be improved (if necessary).
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
@David Eppstein: Do you have any thoughts about what more should be done before moving this page or submitting it for review?ExtandTor (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Right now there's only really one claim to notability (a book with three reviews and over 500 citations, but a more-notable coauthor). I'd like to see at least one other thing (a national-level award, another book, another publication with over 100 citations, promotion to full professor, election to a major academic-society office) to make this draft less weak before pushing to make it an article. So we're waiting less on Wikipedia editing activity and more on the real world. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
@David Eppstein: There is more evidence of notability --- namely the bronze medal in the International Math Olympiad. Another recent page for Ellen Gethner had only one claim to notability, a MAA Chauvenet Award, shared with two other authors, one of whom (Stan Wagon) is a much senior author who has won many prizes and recognition for articles and books that he has written. Why didn't anyone raise the issue of notability for that page? Mvitulli (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
I think that other page is a little dubious, myself, but maybe it slipped under the radar. One bronze in the IMO is a worthwhile accomplishment but certainly not enough for notability. It's a high-school level competition and, while it's difficult to get on the team from a large country, New Zealand is not large. They give a bronze to participants who ranged from the 25th to 65th percentiles (that is, roughly 3/4 of the participants are at or above the bronze medal level). We've seen articles kept on the basis of IMO performance, but those ones had more like three or four golds. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
The bronze alone isn't evidence of notability --- it's just an indicator. I don't think standards are applied evenly and that bothers me. Should I comment on the other page? I think I should. Mvitulli (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Mvitulli: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ana Achúcarro and its followup DRV (or don't, if you value your sanity) for why I want to make extra sure that the articles I create on women are clearly notable by multiple criteria. Because it's predictable that many of them will be attacked and I want to both preempt that and prepare a very strong response when it happens. Fortunately Gethner hasn't been (yet) but if her article were nominated for deletion it might be difficult to save, and that would make it doubly difficult to re-create it later even after she becomes more clearly notable. It's an unfortunate thing about working in today's climate on Wikipedia. However there are also plenty of highly accomplished women who still don't have articles, so I don't think the need to work twice as hard to establish notability is as much of a barrier to article creation as it would seem. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
@David Eppstein:Thanks for the explanation. We will continue to work on this.
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
@David Eppstein: I've added more material to this page, as I'm sure you know. I'm wondering if we feel like the article now provides enough evidence of notability. ExtandTor (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
Which criterion of WP:PROF do you think she meets? If it's #C1, I'd be worried that the only really highly-cited work is the book and that this would end up with the same fate (redirection to an article on the book) that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tameka Hobbs seems headed towards. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
