Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Windsor

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 delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Windsor

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am the subject of this recently added Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Windsor According to your policy on the deletion of Biographies of Living Persons, I would like to request the deletion of this article on the basis that I am a 'relatively unknown, non-public figure'. My background as an academic and university administrator has resulted in online references to my research and other work, but none of my work has been carried out in the pursuit of self-promotion (as outlined in your descriptions of high- versus low-profile individuals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Who_is_a_low-profile_individual). The fact that I am a 'low-profile individual' is borne out by the fact that this is an orphan page with no articles linking to it. JenniferWindsor (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if the subject does not want the article I see no reason to keep it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I think she passes WP:PROF#C1, and in general I am in favor of better coverage of women in academia, but WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Citation counts on Google Scholar are high enough to suggest a pass of WP:PROF#C1, but I don't think that overrides WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. XOR'easter (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I disagree with the arguments presented. While the article itself is lacking detail, a quick Google search found that she is reasonably frequently cited in the main NZ media, at times because of her position at Victoria University and as a subject matter expert. It would be inaccurate to describe her as a relatively unknown, non-public figure and the article does not fit the self-promotion criteria. Some tidy up work should bring it up to WP:GNG and link it to other articles. NealeFamily (talk) 04:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC) Reluctant delete as per Stuartyeates. NealeFamily (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notes: Note 1: I created this article as part of my work countering WP:Systemic bias, a series of biographies on every female professor in New Zealand. Note 2: I have fairly deep WP:Conflict of interest here, both in ways that may be obvious and ways that are almost certainly not. Note 3: Thank you to User:NealeFamily for alerting me to this discussion. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I differ with User:NealeFamily about the applicability of WP:LOWPROFILE in this case; press attention gained due to holding a role (such as an academic administrative position) is an indication that the role or organisation is notable rather that than the holder of the role (that's why it isn't already in the article already). Windsor is certainly in the lower levels of notability of academics and has expressed a wish to avoid an article. I see no reason we should not acquiesce to her request. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notable, and I think it's a shame to lose a decent scientific biography, but there's no reason to be bloody-minded about keeping it if the subject requests deletion and the only major contributor doesn't object. – Joe (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think we should respect her request for privacy. Elisa.rolle (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete as per Stuartyeates. Respect the subject's wishes and WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE.--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sad to see someone reluctant to have coverage in the encyclopedia, especially a woman, but if she wants to be deleted then WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE says we should let it go.Pam D 12:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just a thought: do we know that the user requesting deleting actually is the subject? Should she be asked to contact OTRS or something, to verify that this isn't someone else wanting to get her article deleted? WP:AGF but sometimes we need to check. PamD 12:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that contacting WP:OTRS as per Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects would have been the way I would have done it, but I have no doubt that the subject wishes the article removed. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE GretLomborg (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Would pass WP:Prof#1 but delete according to subject's wishes. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

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.