Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Celi

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Vanamonde93 (talk | contribs) at 21:38, 27 April 2019 (→Elizabeth Celi: Closed as no consensus (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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 no consensus. There are both weak and substantive arguments on either side of this discussion. While the arguments to delete are slightly stronger, the claim that the subject meets NAUTHOR has not been convincingly refuted (as the claims to GNG have been). The discussion has been relisted thrice, so I have no option but to close this as "no consensus", with no prejudice against renomination at any point. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Celi

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Elizabeth Celi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. According to her website she is no longer engaged in the practice of psychology, but is apparently looking for work as a director in the film industry. According to her film CV, she has not yet made any notable or even significant films, She never was notable as a psychologist, the only references for this are her own interviews. I cannot confirm Director of Australian Psychological Society, but that seems to be an administrative position, not president of a society. She has published 2 unimportant academic papers in minor journals, and self-published two books. DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject's book Breaking the silence : a practical guide for male victims of domestic abuse is held in at least sixty-seven libraries across Australia, see here and here. Self published or not, unworthy books do not get this level of ackowledgement. Passes NAUTHOR. Aoziwe (talk) 11:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If we were discussing the notability of the book then being held in dozens of libraries would be no evidence of notability; there are vast numbers of books that are held in hundreds or thousands of libraries which come nowhere near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. However, even if we were to accept inclusion in dozens of libraries as evidence of notability of the book, that would not establish notability of its author, as notability is not inherited. And finally no, nothing at all in WP:NAUTHOR could possibly be interpreted as meaning that having written a book which is held in dozens of libraries establishes notability, nor does anything in any of the other notability guidelines. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The subject was a director, and here, ie, a Board member. This is a governance position, and not an administrator, but yes, subordinate to the President. Aoziwe (talk) 12:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Personally I would very much like to see this article kept, because I think that Elizabeth Celi has something to say which deserves to be better known. However, after years of telling new editors that neither I like it nor publicising a point of view is justification for existence of an article, I have to set my own opinion aside. Unfortunately, nothing in the article suggests that she passes any of Wikipedia's notability guidelines; nor does anything in the cited sources (two are her own LinkedIn page and her page on the web site of an organisation she is connected to, one merely includes her name in a list, and all the others do no more than give a few quotes from her); nor does anything else I have been able to find (I searched through the first few dozens of Google hits, and almost all were not independent sources, the very few exceptions being unsuitable for other reasons, such as this Wikipedia article). The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On one hand I agree with you. If we take the relevant NGs on facevalue as they currently stand then, no, the subject is not notable. By consensus, picking a sport article example such as G. Fernando, it is seen that this person satifies WP:NCRICKET/WP:CRIN because they have appeared in one first class match. They essentially completely failed to perform, and are almost absolutely certain never to appear again in any way in WP and their article will remain a micro stub forever. (There are many many more such examples across cricket, football, etc.) The subject in question here, however, is a multiple times author, is sought out for many interviews and panel discussions, and is likely to have future content in WP if the article remains. I am not running an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument here but I am running an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS BY LONGSTANDING AND REVIEWED CONSENSUS argument, based on STUFF which I believe is far far less notable than the subject in question here. Yes the article does need better references, and I suggest there are sufficient to better support the article (accepting though they are barely within current NGs). Regardless of whether we like it or do not like it, surely the fundemental question is "Does it improve the encyclopedia". I believe it does. Surely if we believe there are such grounds, it is up to us to challenge consensus. We need to remember if consensus was followed in regard to encyclopedias, WP would not exist in the first place, and we would not want our own rules to stifle our own evolution - I suggest that this instance lends itself to WP:IAR? Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 11:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
THe problem Aoziwe is that if you nominate a cricket article, all the cricket fans turn up together, as a team and insist "we have decided to set the bar low and keep everything", albeit without references to WP:GNG, and then the closing admin goes with who turned up with more friends rather than who made policy-based arguments. And then people don't want the hassle, and it just gets kept. Tony May (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment' In making my nomination here, I was considerably influenced by the factthat her books are self-published. Self published books or a self published writer are notable only in exceptional circumstances (the most common exceptional circumstance at WP are in science-fiction, where major writers sometimes publish this way, and of course this can also be true of alternative or underground literature. But I think just the opposite is true for self-help or popular psychology is just the opposite--self publishing in this field is an admission of either insignificance or publishing for the sake of publicity. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A search on Ebsco databases shows that she was frequently quoted on the topic of men's mental health in media across Australia from 2008-2016, so I'm not sure that it's true to say "She never was notable as a psychologist". Many of the sources currently in the article quote her on topics related to men's mental health or domestic violence against men - are they what you are referring to when you say "the only references for this are her own interviews", DGG? I would see them as examples of WP:AUTHOR #1 "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." I do think the article could be improved - having a section called "Public speaker and media commentator" sounds more like promotion of her, than outlining the areas she has worked in and the issues she has highlighted. The articles are not interviews with her - they are articles about the topics noted with quotes from her (and others) as a leader in the field. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newspapers are not "peers or successors" A mental health practitioner being available for interviews is a part of promoting their business. I assume you are refering to the sources currently in the article.:
Sydney MorningHerald quotes her as 1 of 4. ABC: one of several people who were quotations .Adeleidenow: t. The Herald cites only her. BrisbaneTimes , one of 3; TheWest, 1 of 4. Some of the othersare actually academic experts who have published in the area, without needing to resort to self-publishing. DGG ( talk ) 16:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to anything in any of the notability guidelines to which either which either serving as a consultant to government or having book held in public libraries is relevant? (Incidentally, my wife has served as a consultant to government, but I do not believe she comes within a thousand miles of satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:02, 20 April 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elizabeth_Celi&oldid=894435206"