Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Thorpe-Moscon

Jennifer Thorpe-Moscon

[Hide this box] 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!

Jennifer Thorpe-Moscon (edit | 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)

No significant independent coverage or reviews, as per WP:NACADEMIC and WP:NAUTHOR. Ploni (talk) 00:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Psychology, and New York. Ploni (talk) 00:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep. I think she passes WP:NACADEMIC as she is an expert in equity issues, has had a substantial impact (criterion 1 or 7) based on the very many reports and papers that cite and quote her work. Some examples:

1. HANCOCK, B. et al. The Black experience at work in charts. McKinsey Quarterly, [s. l.], n. 2, p. 1–10, 2021. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=151015193&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 23 jun. 2022.
2. CORLEY, T. Creating Accountability for Inclusive, Responsive Leadership: To make inclusion a cultural reality, organizations must examine how diversity and leadership can and should work together. People & Strategy, [s. l.], v. 43, n. 1, p. 28–32, 2020. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=142080950&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 23 jun. 2022.
3. https://hbr.org/2019/11/toward-a-racially-just-workplace
4. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_emotional_tax_of_deficit_thinking CT55555 (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• Keep - I agree with CT55555 and thank them for going the additional step and improving the article with the sources quoted. Citations in pieces from Harvard and Stanford is pretty strong grounds for meeting NACADEMIC. Together, sources found by CT55555 demonstrate impact in scholarly discipline. MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• Keep agree with the source analysis as above, with thanks to the user. Oaktree b (talk) 03:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

yes, thanks for the analysis. I wanted to offer a "thanks" using the edit history/clicking on the heart icon thing, but I can't see how to do that. Oaktree b (talk) 03:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the heart icon is how to dispense wikilove and you do that via people's talk pages. You can do the thank thing in the history of the page, but I'll take this as thanks. You are all welcome. I'm trying to model good behaviour at AfD to make sure I improve articles as well as vote, hopefully this will reduce the current polarisation that I'm seeing at recent WP:ANI conversations and now at ArbCom. I appreciate the feedback. Peace. CT55555 (talk) 04:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I need to think about this one a bit more. Not convinced by the citation counts looking at https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Jennifer+Thorpe-Moscon&btnG= for instance, and can see references to but not full reviews of her work to warrant an easy pass of WP:NAUTHOR. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 04:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Not convinced meets WP:NACADEMIC and WP:NAUTHOR, but happy to be proved wrong. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
• Delete. Agreed with Kj cheetham here. It doesn't matter that a researcher is cited. The sources mentioned above do not count toward C1 as they are not peer-reviewed scholarly publications such as journals or academic books. To meet NPROF C1, a scholar must have an outstanding number of citations of their work (and it's critical this work be attributed largely to them, i.e. middle-author and grad school-level papers are not sufficient) -- well above that of the average professor in their field; or have their body of work as a whole described in detail (beyond a citation or brief mention) in multiple independent publications; or have many of their papers independently and individually reviewed. I am not seeing this for this researcher.

There could be a C7 pass if her research has made an exceptional impact on policy. However, this is also demonstrably lacking in the sources above: 1. Where is Thorpe-Moscon specifically discussed in the McKinsey report? 2. This is just a routine citation. 3. "Research by the University of Virginia’s Courtney McCluney and Catalyst’s Dnika Travis and Jennifer Thorpe-Moscon shows that because black employees feel a heightened sense of difference among their mostly white peers, their ability to contribute is diminished." This is better than just appearing in a reference section, but is still a very standard academic citation (and is split across three authors). An average professor in many disciplines would have dozens of these across dozens of papers. 4. "According to authors Dnika J. Travis and Jennifer Thorpe-Moscon, an emotional tax is “a psychological burden where one has to use one’s mental resources to stay vigilant against bias, discrimination, and exclusion.” Over time, this emotional tax causes personal and professional harm on both a person’s well-being and their career success." Again, a standard reference to a research article. These are most certainly not what NPROF demands with C1 or C7, otherwise almost every postdoc publishing in fields where papers only have 1–3 authors would be eligible for an article. Additionally, I see that many of these citations are to reports directly from Catalyst, where she is VP, rather than research published in peer-reviewed journals. I am not sure what is standard in social science, but the fact that this research is not academically published may disqualify citations of it wholesale from C1 and C7. In which case they would need to be evaluated through GNG instead. JoelleJay (talk) 05:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment, I recognise in hindsight that I may have made a less convincing argument than I thought above. I could have made it more robust, if I have foreseen better the critique. I would ask people to drop her name into Google Books and you'll see pages and pages of books that mention her work. I think my initial assessment of her having a substantial impact in the equity space, a substantial influence on writers and scholar is reasonable. CT55555 (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment CT55555 I'd already done that as part of following up from Google Scholar, but the ones I looked at just looked like standard references, not significant reviews of her work. Are there any specific ones which go into detail, rather than just refer to her work? -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

    Sorry for delayed reply, been doing other stuff and choosing to limit my time at AfD. What I saw was lots of high quality sources (Harvard, Stanford etc) quoting her work. I did not go further than that, as that seemed like she was having a significant impact, which is what I was looking for. My thinking is that anyone who's influencing academic publications of these universities is what I would perceive as having a significant impact. Re: WP:NACADEMIC. CT55555 (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

    Personally I'd be expecting to see either independant in-depth reviews of her quote and/or significantly more citations to count as significant impact in academia. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

    I have been wondering if my view is an outlier from consensus, or if my way of looking at this is a logical and defensible position. Especially, I'm thinking about that as the ArbCom are focusses on behaviour in AfD and I'm curious if I exhibit any of the behaviours that seem to be the topic of hot debate. I hope my way of looking at this is reasonable, I'm currently second guessing every comment I make at AfD. CT55555 (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Delete. Citation counts definitely not adequate for WP:PROF. It appears that her books are self-published; this is not per se an obstacle to WP:AUTHOR notability, but we would need multiple published in-depth reviews for multiple books, and I didn't find any. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
• Keep. Geek Girls is in WorldCat and she is cited tons of times in GoogleBooks. Let's stop deleting bios of under-represented groups plz. 128.252.172.28 (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Having a work published (and then listed in a comprehensive catalog of all publications), and belonging to an under-represented group, are not valid criteria for notability. The work has to have some significant impact, as measured for instance by reviews or citations. Lowering the bar is neither necessary for improving our representation (there are plenty of under-represented people to write about who do meet our notability standards) nor helpful in improving our representivity (because it would lead to including even more articles from publicity-hungry but non-under-represented people). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
    • She is cited in numerous commercially-published books, a fact easily verified. Your second statement is a non-sequitur because WP is loaded with numerous bios of non-notable people, almost all of whom are there because of various special interests. Delete those first. Keep this one because the citations are there. 128.252.172.28 (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)