Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 May 1

1 May 2019

Clarice Phelps

Clarice Phelps (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The Ulrich quote-become-catch phrase "Well-behaved women seldom make history" observes that, historically and contemporarily speaking, patriarchical systemic bias grants notice to women as courtesans or else when considered outliers. With such sociological facets no doubt in mind, on the Wikipedia project there is an effort at the moment to, in the Katherine Maher tweet, find a ”more nuanced understanding of reliable sources, a more inclusive and flexible application of notability, more diverse contributors, and a more welcoming and inclusive editing culture”[1]. Despite the predominant gender make up of the Wikipedia community, a not insubstantial contingent agree, also believing there an effectual imbalance toward deletionism of blps perhaps for individuals traditionally thought mundanely providing "the silent work of ordinary people" (to borrow another phrase of Harvard's Laurel Thatcher Ulrich as culled from Wikipedia's biography of her) despite when such individuals achieved notability for being outliers in some fashion. Sexy second-tier women's tennis stars? Typically, substantial blps. Somewhat "unsung" women accomplices of men achieving feats--which women have nonetheless become well known? Often, deleted Wikipedia "biographies of living people" thought insufficiently deserving of what is their actual note. In the current case, coverage is no longer wp:TOO SOON owing new sourcing become available. Simultaneously a devoted contingent of conscientious Wikipedia volunteers are filling in a more-than-stub quality effort--all toward better achievment of the project's aspirations (in my offhandly presumed paraphrase) to provide accurately precise yet concise information about a quite-full panoply of topics of proven interest to people. Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse - This rationale seems to propose that we intentionally reduce our standards of WP:notability in order to meet some fantastical quota goal. The problem is not in how Wikipedia operates - its entirely dependent on what independent, secondary, and reliable sources choose to focus their attention on. The "new sourcing" is WP:CIRCULAR - in fact, intentionally circular because the story has been both written by and promoted by agenda-driven Wikipedians. Its a disgusting misuse and manipulation of this article's subject. -- Netoholic @ 02:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• Closing admin statement I'll let the community sort this out for the most part, but I will comment as to why I do not think the salting should be lifted without community consensus (full arguments can be seen here.) There was a clear consensus at a previous AfD and DRV that Phelps does not meet the current notability guidelines. Since then the original author and someone who has blogged for the WikiEd program have written op-eds in what appears to be a blatant attempt to create notability for a subject who is not otherwise notable. In addition to gaming the system, it is in my view, morally reprehensible to do this to a living person and to use her for a political point on-wiki.
  At this time, Phelps is now more known for the fact that we deleted her than for anything she has done in her career. That is a travesty. It is an invitation to a massive BLP violation that will stay with Phelps for the rest of her life if we unsalt this now before the dust settles. In six months if she's still the subject of attention, then sure, but right now we basically have a WP:BLP1E, where the 1E was an on-wiki determination that she was not notable.
  That is not enough to change the status of the last AfD and I think we have a moral obligation not to let her be defined by an on-wiki fight. I won't be commenting on the rest of the DRV, as I feel the community as a whole should make this call, and I will gladly cede my view to the rest of the community if people feel it is wrong. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Clarice Phelps promoted ("shared") the Washington Post article on her own LinkedIn page [2]. She was interviewed for the Undark piece. I don't think we need to worry that this media exposure will damage her reputation; obviously, she isn't worried about it. We don't need to protect Clarice Phelps from anything (other than maybe systemic bias on Wikipedia). Let's evaluate the article based on whether the subject is notable, not based on concerns that we need to protect the poor little girl from the big bad social justice warriors (my words, not Tony's). Leviv ich 02:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

  Sorry, but we have an obligation to our subjects that goes beyond the moment. In ten years it is very likely that this will be what she is remembered for if a biography is created now. That is not fair to her, and it is using a human being as a mere means to an end, which is always wrong. That will be my last comment here, and I'd request that you address it in your eventual !vote so as to make things easier for the closer to read. Speaking from experience, long threads are hard to follow. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

  Tony, I can't hold my tongue here. You must recognize the very poor optics of a man telling a woman that he is salting her Wikipedia biography because he knows what will be best for her in 10 years. Leviv ich 03:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

  Better or worse than the "optics" of Wikipedia admitting that we will apply reduced scrutiny to a certain segment of articles. How insulting to every WIR article subject that they would never know if they were legitimately on Wikipedia for their own merits under a fair and consistent standard. And how insulting to every similar subject of equal caliber who is left off of Wikipedia just because they are male. -- Netoholic @ 04:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

  Female scholars need to achieve more for equal public recognition. In fact the unequal standards go in the opposite direction that you assume. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

  @TonyBallioni: - Even though I am against recreation, I have to agree with Levivich here, the idea that we have to specifically protect against a concern on appearance waved by the (adult) subject is not appropriate. There are other arguments, such as CIRCULAR, but this is not one. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per Netoholic and per all of the things that have been said about this in so many places on Wikipedia already. The deletion was proper, and the reasons still apply. Natureium (talk) 02:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• Allow recreation (!Voted keep at first AfD.) – The article was deleted because she didn't meet any subject notability guideline nor the general notability guideline. Now new sources have been released, changing the "facts on the ground". Question: is it possible for a biography to be notable, while the subject of the biography is not notable? Answer: no. This Undark piece is independent significant coverage in a reliable source. That's one. This Daily Dot piece is two. That's significant coverage sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Allow recreation, there is no longer any reason not to. At the very least, let it be recreated and someone can take it to AfD if they still think it should be deleted. Leviv ich 03:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

  I'd also like to draw attention to Katherine Maher's interview in this month's Signpost in which she said: I like to point to the fact that on English Wikipedia [in the last three years], the percentage of articles about women has increased from 15 to nearly 18 percent. "Nearly" 18 percent! Leviv ich 03:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

  We don't give a flying fuck about what she thinks. Argument from authority and all that. ∯WBG^converse 07:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

  I am gobsmacked by your language, Winged Blades of Godric. Please review WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY if you've forgotten how they apply. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

  We don't give a flying fuck is not a personal attack against Levivich or Katherin or anybody else. It is an emphatic form of We don't give a hoot or We don't care. And, there is nothing about assuming good faith or bad faith in the entire locus. We certainly don't care about what Katherine, (by the virtue of her chair), perceives about our content and accordingly don't bow down to an argument from authority.

  Was it rude? Yeah, probably. I ought to have left it at We don't give a damn or something like that. But, then rude sayings are not a subset of NPA.

  This is the third time, I am seeing this argument being forwarded by the WIR-folks in a content dispute. If something's not going your way, just point to Catherine (and it helps, that she has a good reputation than Jimbo). ∯WBG^converse 09:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  While you and I may see a nuanced policy discussion amongst a number of good-faith editors, outsiders skimming this might instead see, "I know what's best for this woman in the future" and "We don't give a flying fuck what that woman thinks" and "We're not here for social justice" and then "What systemic bias?" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ And while everyone means well, it looks bad. At best, it looks like we completely lack self-awareness, like we're amateurs who have no idea how to present ourselves to the outside world. Such a perception would be as unfortunate as it is inaccurate. Leviv ich 19:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse.Involved in Afd. Little has changed since last AfD less than month ago. Article creator wrote a few paragraphs on Phelps in an op-ed. Another op-ed on the deletion was written in Undark and republished elsewhere (the Daily dot being essentially a copy of this - having a "H/T Slate" at the bottom linking to a republication of Undark). The Undark oped purports to know the article creator's feelings and does not seem independent - and regardless is an op-ed. We also have serious WP:CITOGEN issues in relation to a "firstness" claim which first appeared on Wikipedia (unsupported by the citation reffing it). Op-eds do not establish notability and furthermore they are not on our subject but on Wikipedia deletion - Deletion on Wikipedia of Clarice Phelps - for which we do not have independent and WP:SUSTAINED coverage. All this could perhaps be evaluated in 6-12 months, but it is way too soon now.Icewhiz (talk) 03:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse per the discussions on draft-talk and all that. Nothing has changed apart from the authors writing shitty op-eds to influence our processes. ∯WBG^converse 07:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse - In addition to what has been said already, I also find this drum beat about "male dominated", "gender bias" etc. quite off-putting. Plenty of us have written articles about women and fought for them too. The campaigners need to publish their original research elsewhere, not on Wikipedia. I don't see WP:GNG having been met, despite the new sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse^{Not involved in either AfD—is that a first?!} per TB, not so much this statement, but per his talk and the AfD close. "Sources" means something very specific on Wikipedia; by sources, we mean, implicitly, sources of a certain kind. That is, independent, reliable and third-party; this responsibility is all the weightier in a BLP:
  Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately; do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space).
  The additional sources "discovered", for the most part, do not fulfil the criteria; they are diminished as a result. As someone pointed out elsewhere, and paraphrased, if the WaPo, in its omniscient wisdom as to what's best for Wikipedia chooses to write independently on the subject without mentioning WP, then it might be a different matter... ——SerialNumber54129 08:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse (been involved in this pretty much throughout) - as per the above endorsers. How condescending to suggest that we lower the notability bar for women and other supposed under-represented groups - "Wikipedia's male-dominated community will make it easier for you, dears". - Sitush (talk) 08:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment The AFD was closed early (after less than a day) so it looks to me that we are not here reviewing whether the close was in line with AFD2 consensus. I suppose we should be reviewing whether the WP:G4 was according to policy. For a valid G4 a prerequisite is that the versions were "substantially identical". I can't see the history to give an opinion on that but maybe Draft:Clarice Phelps has relevant information. Can anyone help me? The salting would also not be on grounds of consensus but would have been an administrative decision. I think salting is a matter sometimes reviewed at DRV. Thincat (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment 2 Although the nomination specifies AFD2 for review, everyone (including the nominator) seems to be considering AFD1 (or, frankly, conducting another AFD discussion). Provisionally, for AFD1 I would endorse as within discretion although no consensus would have been perhaps a better close. Thincat (talk) 09:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC) I am belatedly declaring (late because I had forgotten and have only just realised!) I gave an opinion of AFD1 at DRV1. Thincat (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• Whether 1, 2, the speedy of Clarice E. Phelps or the current Draft:Clarice Phelps, the rationale for a "delete" closure/action is fundamentally the same because the articles are fundamentally the same. The significant difference is the later introduction of sources written by Wikipedians involved in Women in Red etc and published/republished as op-eds etc in various media. Inter alia, those new sources contain the same fallacies discussed in the original AfD. - Sitush (talk) 10:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you, that is helpful. I can only see the history of Draft:Clarice Phelps and the history is confusing me. Are there versions corresponding to the start and finish of AFD1 and the speedy? I obviously agree that material added subsequently to the AFDs is irrelevant to our discussion here, nor does the present discussion in any way prejudice such additions. Thincat (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• There was a histmerge in the draft. The re-created version was substantially identical - this is the diff from the last version "live" during the AfD, though the April recreation was probably based on this version or round about there (the article was edited during the AfD). Icewhiz (talk) 10:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• Haven't read through all of this so please excuse me if I've duplicated information here, but AFD1 has already been to deletion review as well where it was well endorsed. SportingFlyer T·C 08:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• I’m curious as to why User:DGG approved and mainspaced the draft, did he compare with the deleted article? If there were no significant new sources attesting notability, the recent AfD must be respected, and that is what CSD#G4 is for. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Endorse the AfD and recent G4 as a reasonable decision. I have finally found DGG's comments at User talk:Iridescent#Curious question for you and stalkers. I read there that the justification for the recreation (AfC acceptance) was the removal of the worst promotionalism in the article, not the inclusion of new sources, which makes it an acceptable but arguable G4. BLP concerns are overstated, given that the subject is a public person, and recent reports of her statements mentioned in this discussion. SALTing should not be required, but neither can I believe that a bold re-creation is likely justifiable in the next six months, so I recommend that the SALTing expire in six months. Re-creation should not be allowed without WP:THREE substantial new sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC) I think I am completely uninvolved with anything relating to this. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

One two three four five new potential sources. They may not all be SIGCOV, but enough to avoid G4? Leviv ich 02:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

One, paragraph 1, sentence 4 “The nuclear scientist is thought ... was created” meets the GNG. Is undark.org a reliable reputable source? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Two is not about Clarice. It says nothing about her.

Three says nothing about her except “deemed not appropriate for Wikipedia”. Listing facts is not comment.

Leviv, I think you’ve missed an important part of WP:THREE. List the THREE best. Not more. Your two and three fail. If they are the best three, not notable. Clarice’s organisation has actively promoted her, this means the independent third party coverage test will be tested. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: There aren't THREE, and if there were, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all, because three independent RSes providing significant coverage make notability more or less irrefutable around here. THREE isn't a requirement, though, and I think like half of our articles would fail the THREE test (including entire topic areas like pro wrestling, but that's another story). This – to me – is about G4 and salting... the question isn't whether these sources all count as THREE (I said they didn't in my initial reply), the question is whether these sources are enough to make the new draft sufficiently different from the old draft to get around G4. Do we have a two-step process–allow recreation, then AfD–or do we have a one-step process where we don't allow recreation until we're certain it'll pass an AfD? (BTW, what my sources numbered two and three have is the "Phelps is first" claim.) Oh and, yes, I think Undark Magazine (source one) is an RS, for more discussion about that particular source check out the RSN thread. Leviv ich 14:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

When push comes to shove WP:THREE *IS* required. In the immediate aftermath of the AfD decision to "delete", push has come to shove. Just as one is not welcome to do an immediate deletion renomination after an AfD result to "keep" or "no consensus", of course one is not welcome to do an immediate re-creation following a formal "delete" decision, barring substantial new information, and this substantial new information amounts to WP:THREE now being met. Also, ideally, someone attempting a re-creation within six months of a deletion decision, will first contact the AfD closer for their opinion, even if they thing WP:THREE is met.

For the advocates of an article on Clarice Phelps, my advice is: Wikipedia does not do original biographies, Wikipedia only covers what others have already covered. Independent others. Clarice's list of accomplishments are mere facts, and Wikipedia doesn't make inclusion decisions on facts, it instead defers to whether independent others have said qualitative things about the subject. Who, independent of Clarice and her affiliations, has said what about Clarice? We need WP:THREE, or else the AfD deletion decision must stand.

The other thing about WP:THREE is that four is not three. Cut the noise. Do not WP:Reference bomb. If the three best are not enough, no number of weaker sources (independent, reliable, secondary sources that comment directly on the subject) will make up the difference. Given the formal decision made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarice Phelps, impartial Wikipedians are not interested in engaging in debating increasing numbers of lower quality sources. If you continue to include twitter links, or affiliated organisation links, in your request for review of new sources, you'll be brushed away as wasting others' time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

While I agree with you, I must note WP:THREE is an essay, not policy. SportingFlyer T·C 00:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

It is an essay that explains WP:Deletion policy, deletion reason #8, pointing to WP:N, at the centre of which is the WP:GNG that speaks directly to these things. It is a good essay that explains the deletion policy and how to proceed with complying with that policy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse (not involved in any prior discussions) the op-eds have several issues and therefore a recreation is not justified yet. Firstly, it's not clear that they're independent of each other and count as distinct sources for GNG purposes – the Dot source is listed as "H/T" (heard through) Slate, which hosted a copy of the original Undark op-ed. Secondly, the sources give a very brief account of Phelps herself, focusing more on Wikipedia's deletion processes. Particularly the Daily Dot piece, which barely devotes a line in the first paragraph. Since the point was brought up: it is possible, albeit rare, for a Wikipedia article to be notable but its subject not to be: Jar'Edo Wens hoax. Perhaps this saga might instead merit a mention in criticism of Wikipedia.

There is also the issue of the reliability of opinion pieces for factual reporting and possible citogenesis, which I have not yet formed an arguable opinion on.

I acknowledge the subject is probably on the brink of notability and so waiting a few months before an attempt at recreation while collecting sources in a draft would be a good move. The media coverage may generate new sources.

If there is a problem with the current notability guidelines for biographies, the correct place for that discussion would be somewhere like WT:BIO, not here. – Teratix ₵ 13:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• Allow recreation. Phelps has told me now via email about the article: "Of course I would like to see it up!" I can forward it to OTRS or ArbCom if necessary. @TonyBallioni: does this change your mind about BLP concerns? I have no opinion on the notability and don't intend to spend a lot of time researching and arguing either way. @Levivich: I find your arguments the most reasonable, though I don't have enough time to properly examine this situation. wumbolo ^^^ 14:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  • It alleviates some of the BLP concerns, so I’m less worried about that now (though, fwiw, we tend to assume that no subject realizes how Wikipedia works and when it may be a negative, and this is an assumption regardless of gender)
    I’m still not reversing the salting, however, as there has been significant community comment on this on both sides, and having community consensus in order to restore seems ideal, especially given that all that has changed is that we have non-independent sourcing. Regardless, it’s best to let the community process play out at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Wumbolo: I admire your reasoning gymnastics; You have no opinion on the notability, you don't intend to spend a lot of time researching, you don't have enough time to properly examine this situation, you do communicate with the subject of the discussion off-wiki—but you do consider yourself sufficiently aquainted with the facts of the case to advocate for the article's restoration...? Right... ——SerialNumber54129 14:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. I haven't formulated an opinion on Phelps specifically, yet, which is why this is only a comment. But I am disturbed by the reasoning in the nomination statement for AFD2. It's basically a catch-22 that, once a topic has ever been deemed not-yet-notable, prevents it from ever becoming notable: if you don't add new references, then the old nomination stands (so far, so appropriate) but if you do add many new references, then the article has been "refbombed" and that terrorist action itself becomes a reason for deletion, with the references judged by their weakest link rather than their strongest. That's not how it should work. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: Please, per User:Fæ , desist from that language. And, incidentally, that's not how it works, thank goodness. ——SerialNumber54129 17:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: You are pointing fingers in the wrong direction. I was merely calling out the "refbombing" term used by AFD2 as being inappropriately prejudicial, by taking it to an extreme. If you're going to be policing language, go after the nominator of AFD2. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

But David Eppstein, how can I be policing language...when I'm merely quoting Fae...? Mmmm. ——SerialNumber54129 17:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

No need for a diff Serial Number 54129, it's right here on this page: ... as one Arbcom member disgustingly put it yesterday, "diversity terrorist", viewpoints forever. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

H'mm multiple pages eh? Cheers, Mr rnddude... ——SerialNumber54129 17:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• • I share this concern. XOR'easter (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I also share this concern. UrsulaGeorges (talk)
• Allow recreation When I read the original article during the first AfD, I wasn't entirely persuaded of the notability case and !voted to draftify. There's now just enough coverage that, were I to see it at AfD for the first time, I would !vote a weak keep. (If the new sources were in fringe venues, or if the second news item had no indication that they even tried to do investigation on their own, I'd still be in the "draftify" column.) The question of how much the article should say about this whole deletion cycle is a matter of due weight that we could resolve through ordinary editing. And if we are so concerned with what the article's subject would prefer to be known for, well, having our page talk primarily about the science would help keep the science at the top of the Google results. XOR'easter (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @XOR'easter: - surely if the additional sources are such a significant part of demonstrating notability, then WP:DUE would require a major talking about the dispute - otherwise we're biasing the content? Nosebagbear (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @Nosebagbear: Not necessarily: demonstrating wiki-notability per our local, sometimes rather Byzantine system isn't always quite aligned with demonstrating noteworthiness more generally. To focus on the specific case of scientists, the data points that can tip the balance towards passing WP:PROF might only deserve a brief mention. It takes a sentence to state that a person won a major award or was Editor-in-Chief of a prestigious journal, while describing their work could take many paragraphs. The former establishes wiki-notability, but the latter is why the article would be worth reading. XOR'easter (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
      • @XOR'easter: hang on, are you saying our policies are overly complex, contradictory and not lined up with common sense - madness! An interesting argument, certainly with something to it. It's further complicated that rules like DUE/UNDUE are best designed to deal with disagreements on particular issues - not different things that the individual has done (or had done etc). In any case, we can save that fun dispute for after this one has been resolved! Nosebagbear (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment – In case anyone is looking for additional analysis of the new sources, there is discussion at Draft talk:Clarice Phelps, WP:RSN#Undark and others for scientist BLP and WP:RSN#"First..." claims for scientist BLP. Leviv ich 16:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• It sucks that our rules require us to keep articles about individual Far Side cartoons, Paul the Octopus and the List of Crayola crayon colors but we have to delete the biography of this intelligent and accomplished woman. Because our rules do require this, I am, with immense reluctance, going to type the word "endorse" here.—S Marshall T/C 17:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

  Aren't no firm rules and ignore all rules specifically for the situation where rules lead to an outcome that sucks? Leviv ich 02:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse We're not here to right wrongs. This person has a job in the field of science, that doesn't mean they should have a wiki bio. They should have one if they have accomplished something that has been picked up by reliable, independent of the subject sources that describe, in depth, what that person did to warrant such coverage. This person did not receive such coverage per the consensus at the deletion discussion and thus should stay deleted. Fighting against biases is noble, but not at the expense of the policies that keep Wikipedia what it is; an encyclopedia. Valeince (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

  There hasn't been a deletion discussion to discuss the new sources. It may be that there's no point to having one, but there are now multiple articles in independent, reliable sources (see above), although editors disagree about whether they count, for various reasons. Leviv ich 02:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

  From what I can tell, the sources that are coming out now are all about this spat on Wikipedia and not about her actual accomplishments and why they're so great that she deserves and article and not the hundreds of other team members that dealt with this discovery. Besides, if there were more sources now, then the article can go through the articles for creation process to have it reviewed. Valeince (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse this has been discussed extensively elsewhere and I'm not seeing anything which particularly justifies reopening the issue. The OP's argument is that we should improve the representation of female biographies on Wikipedia, but I don't think we should do so by ignoring or lowering the notability standards. That would be like a STEM company which wants to improve female representation in its workforce opting to do this by hiring some unqualified female candidates. Likewise I don't think that a few news articles about the Wikipedia debate justifies including a biography, per WP:NOTNEWS. At best that should be covered in some article about Wikipedia. I assume that by now there has been a near-exhaustive search of any potential sources or other evidence of notability here. Hut 8.5 18:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I was asked why I moved the draft to mainspace: I did so not because I am convinced that she is notable- I do not have great reliance on our methods of determining this, and the only way to find out in a practical way is to get a community decision. I transferred it because it seemed to me a good idea to have a compromise, a short article, saying exactly what was able to be accurately said, because people were likely to look for her here. I still think this a good idea.

But I am not convinced that my draft was as good as it could have been. Deletion process is supposed to look for compromise solutions, but usually that isn't what happens. DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse. Nothing has changed at all since the first two AfDs and the first DRV discussion that took place just weeks ago, and the community consensus on this is very clear. For the subject of this article a recreation would also be very unfortunate, as she is now known solely for the persistent attempts to create a Wikipedia article about her – as a non-notable lab technician with a bachelor's degree – that contained numerous erroneous claims about degrees and accomplishments, and the equally firm determination of the Wikipedia community in three discussions so far that she is not notable based on any professional accomplishments. Hence, any article would need to treat the Wikipedia article controversy as her primary claim to fame, rather than any professional accomplishments (along the lines of "Clarice Phelps is a lab technician who became known for a controversy over the accuracy, relevance and deletion of her biographical article in Wikipedia"; there would even be a strong case for moving any article to Wikipedia article of Clarice Phelps and treat the article itself as the notable subject: "The Wikipedia article of Clarice Phelps was a biographical article in the encyclopedia Wikipedia on the lab technician Clarice Phelps that was the subject of a controversy over its accuracy, relevance and deletion in 2019."). The editors constantly recreating the article are doing her (and also women in science in general) a huge disservice, and we should now leave her in peace. Whether she wants a Wikipedia article or not is not relevant, and any article would probably be very different from the one she might have in mind. --Tataral (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment First off and most importantly, !votes completely failing to reference yet alone perhaps adddress how to possibly rectify if not systemic bias generally in society then at least that almost universally acknowledged as existing on Wikipedia of course ought most properly be discounted out of hand as having been proffered as "votes proper" toward determining community consensus in this instance, their thusly part and parcel of the underlying problem. Secondly, the issue at hand ought rely on a discussion of how we ought determine the superlative. Renown is engendered by being first or by being best, then also by some shade of the foregoing two inherent in somehow being thought extraordinary. I.e. if the emperor's favorite consort is an instance of a "first" and an Athenian drama's win if the citizenry's greatest praise is an example of "best," What do we do about instances where someone's especially charismatic, so on and so forth? And I submit that it's precisely how we answer this last question and how it should apply to the case at hand ought almost solely be the crux here. Indeed today we need to be visionary, believing our efforts on Wikipedia not merely an exercise in serving whatever the rules but believing whatever rules exist as made to serve Wikipedia's most exalted ambitions.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Hodgdon's secret garden: First off and most importantly, !votes completely failing to reference yet alone perhaps adddress how to possibly rectify ... systemic bias ... ought most properly be discounted. No, absolutely not. If anything it should be the other way around. There are five clearly defined cases where deletion review can overturn a discussion: an incorrect reading of consensus, an incorrect speedy deletion, incorrect procedure during the discussion, a wrongly deleted page with unknown content, or if significant new information comes to light after the discussion. Personal dislike of the notability guidelines is not one of these; any proposals for a change belong at WT:BIO or similar. I firmly disagree with any attempt to claim IAR here as there have been three recent discussions showing the community consensus is to keep the article deleted and a poorly sourced article shouldn't be kept just because editors like it.

What this review should be looking at is whether the op-eds constitute a significant new reason to keep the article (and the related validity of the G4 deletion), not the supposed bias of notability guidelines. – Teratix ₵ 04:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Allow recreation and readdress notability criteria for scientists, who actually advance human knowledge and make new scientific discoveries worthy of inclusion in the sum of all human knowledge. Because it is daft that the current notability criteria allow any Tom, Dick, and Harry (genders noted) that happened to kick a football around a muddy field, or fictional characters in a TV soap to have articles, but actual real life researchers pushing the frontiers of science, in this case contributing to the discovery an new chemical element i.e. the basic building blocks of our existence, are not worthy of inclusion here. Polyamorph (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

  We do do that. But she did not. She was a member of a team, and not a significant one. Natureium (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

  We all work in teams, while she might in the past have been a technician, now she is a program manager and principal investigator. I fail to see the point of you replying to my comment. Polyamorph (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

  Where does it say shes a principal investigator? Natureium (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

  Have you actually researched her profile to find out? Polyamorph (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

  hint Look up her CV. Polyamorph (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

  Do you have a link? I haven't been able to find it. Natureium (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

  "Principal investigator for efforts focused on beta battery production" Leviv ich 02:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

  A LinkedIn page would probably be closed to a resume than a CV, and isn't reliable in any way anyway. Natureium (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  The problem here is vague WP:WEASEL phrases like "contributing to", "helping" etc., that say nothing about her actual role and her own personal accomplishments. In the original article she was also awarded a PhD in chemistry she didn't have, and it turned out that she only holds a bachelor's degree and worked in a junior technician role. How many people were involved in the project? Do all grad students, lab technicians etc. who are involved with a large research project automatically deserve articles? Typically, in such projects, the most senior scientists will be notable, but not everyone in a project that includes for example 350 people at all levels/career stages, from students to very established scientists. Someone who only holds a bachelor's degree is almost by definition non-notable as a scientist, unless she personally discovers an element, wins a Nobel prize or does something truly exceptional. There is no evidence at all that she did any of those things. --Tataral (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

  That's very Hierarchical, what you are saying is only those at the top can possibly be notable. I think that's not a view reflected in general on wikipedia outside of scholarly articles. Consider sports people (WP:ATHLETE), many who are considered by wikipedia to be notable if they have played as part of a team in a significant sporting event. We don't say only the team manager or captain is significant enough for their own independent article. The notability guidelines clearly state that each individual team member is notable in their own right. I am suggesting that a discussion is needed (somewhere more suitable) on whether the notability of scholars, especially those who make discoveries as part of a team, are judged too harshly compared to other non-science subjects. In the meantime I stand by my comment to un-salt the article, since there is increasing significant coverage of this individual.Polyamorph (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

  ... that say nothing about her actual role ... The sources speak to her actual role:

  Element 117 was produced at the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in Dubna, Russia, using a "hot fusion" technique that combined calcium-48 and berkelium-249. The radioactive berkelium could only be produced at Oak Ridge's High Flux Isotope Reactor, and is one of the "nastiest targets to work with from a radiation-handling perspective." Because berkelium has a half-life of only 310 days and less than 30 milligrams were produced, the Oak Ridge team had little time to purify the berkelium and ship it to Dubna. Over the course of three months, Phelps and fellow Oak Ridge scientists Rose Boll and Shelley van Cleve removed impurities from the berkelium sample using radiation-proof gloveboxes, losing less than a milligram in the process. Phelps described the berkelium purification as a tedious, multistep process. The ultrapure berkelium was shipped to Dubna, where it was successfully used to create element 117. Overall, over 50 staff members from Oak Ridge contributed to the production and purification of the berkelium used in the experiment, and the new element was named "tennessine" after Tennessee, the US state where Oak Ridge resides.

Sources
References

Someone who only holds a bachelor's degree is almost by definition non-notable as a scientist, unless ... Oak Ridge National Laboratory says she's notable. Leviv ich 02:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

That someone's own employer puts something about their employee's "dedicated service" on their website doesn't confer any notability. --Tataral (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse this just keeps looping round in circles despite a total lack of reason to believe that anything's changed in the last few weeks. I'm just tired of seeing endless threads hashing over the same points and same limited number of citations. Blythwood (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

In the last weeks new reputable sources have been generated, so yes things have changed.Polyamorph (talk) 05:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Your being "tired" is of no consequence.Polyamorph (talk) 09:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Weak Endorse for now - Op Eds are not suitable sources, so they can't create notability. However, if we now get more coverage of the dispute in a more neutral fashion, a case for an article could well be made - however, as that would be responsible for notability, WP:DUE would actually require us to write most of the content about the dispute, rather than her own actions. Which would be odd. One thing I am absolutely against is the idea of lowering notability requirements to balance failures in the media to create it. Putting aside that would need a massive RfC to do, not DRV, we bicker enough on notability. This would functionally double the complexity of biographical notability discussions. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse Recreation of an article that was previously deleted per community consensus is a violation of policy. Coming back a month later and attacking an admin for re-deleting on these grounds with a long rant about the patriarchy and courtesans and outliers, without even attempting to address the substance of what happened here, should IMO be grounds for an indef block per NOTHERE. And this is coming from an unapologetic feminist who's created more articles on notable women who previously didn't have articles than most other WIR members. I know I probably don't have to defend my bona fides upfront like this, but ... well, my reasons for suspecting foul play here should be pretty obvious. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

This is not the forum to discuss editor conduct, Hijiri 88 (in fact within your "...'reasons for suspecting foul play here should be pretty obvious" &c so many of Wikipedia's most fundamental and foundational of principles are violated it leaves me to believe that owing to the passions of the moment you've simply temporarily lost your senses...then again if not I s'pose I'll have to see you then at AN/I then .) Best wishes.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 04:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

[Spliced in later]: Hijiri 88, I in no way question your bonafides--nor anyone else's here, in any fashion. Furthermore, w rgd what u regard my "rant" about outlier behaviors, I certainly believe one can still be feminist yet disagree with Ulrich's perpective about how women have/ do make history. Peace out--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 08:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you just trolling here? I can't for the life of me figure out how the above comment could have been made in good faith. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

And this is coming from an unapologetic feminist who's created more articles on notable women who previously didn't have articles than most other WIR members - this is something that should be celebrated, not attacked. The fact that this bothers you reveals only your own prejudices.Polyamorph (talk) 05:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What on earth are you talking about!? You say people should be celebrated and not attacked for holding feminist views, and yet you seem to be attacking me for saying as much...? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I thought you were referring to Jess Wade as the unapologetic feminist. But re-reading your comment it seems you may have been referring to yourself. In which case ignore me! Polyamorph (talk) 06:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Polyamorph: Please desist immeditely from contimuing to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion. Your ~aspersions are unlikely to change anyone's mind. Goodbye. ——SerialNumber54129 09:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Where is the evidence of bludgeoning? Polyamorph (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done ——SerialNumber54129 10:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

To expend on styles by which some women contribute, which contribute to their earning less notice, Cf. the WaPo: "... the group had tried to submit a Wikipedia article on the New Zealand writer Alison Waley, but it was rejected. She showed me a screenshot of the rejection. Perhaps, it posited, Waley could just be part of her husband’s Wikipedia article instead? It was complicated, Ross said, because Waley’s most famous work was, in fact, a memoir about life with her husband. He was a noted translator whom Waley had known for years, though they only married shortly before his death. While Arthur was receiving public accolades for public work, Alison was cataloguing the private, quotidian parts of life: portraits of time, place, parties and people. But wasn’t that also valuable? Ross asked. Weren’t those things also important contributions to history — a way of understanding how people lived and what the world looked like?"[3]--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

What does this anecdote have to do with whether the closing admin correctly interpreted the AfD consensus or, indeed, any other DRV criteria? Am I missing something? - Sitush (talk) 07:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse It's unfortunate this has become such a political discussion - even though the WP:DRVPURPOSE appears clear (reasonable G4?) it's not mentioned in the initial DRV post. The close on the second AfD was well within policy. I would also endorse the salt - I don't think there's enough here to write a biography on, and I'm happy to be wrong, but I believe it should be done through draft space and notability proven before moving back to mainspace. SportingFlyer T·C 08:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse (regretfully). The nominator does not explain what exactly supposedly has changed between the last discussions and now. While I am personally unhappy that accomplished women are not getting the coverage they should, this is not something we can fix. Wikipedia is, as an encyclopedia, only a mirror of what reliable sources cover and if they do not cover a subject as well as they should, we cannot write an article about that subject (even if we should). Those in the media critical of Wikipedia in this instance should instead look inward and question themselves why they have not felt it necessary to cover Phelps in the past (if one checks news sources before 2017, one will not find any reliable sources mentioning her and in 2017, there were only two - a recycled press release and the Twitter post by Mrs. Wade). If and when there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish her notability, I will be the first to argue for recreation but at the moment all new sourcing that was released after the last AFD mainly covers Wikipedia and not Phelps. Regards SoWhy 10:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Allow recreation It seems a well sourced article of a person with a real achievement to her name. Certainly more noteable than the thousands of articles about 19th century local politicians which adorn the site.Nickpheas (talk) 11:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nickpheas: - certainly better sourced, but that's because we use a specific notability guideline (WP:NPOL) for politicians (which removes more than it allows), because we can be fairly confident they would have had a fair amount of coverage. This article would be under either WP:GNG or WP:NPROF. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Looks good to me The article has grown substantially beyond stub stage; it is well structured; it is wel referenced; it has an image as illustration; and yes I am interested to learn through Wikipedia who has been instrumental in the discovery of each and every chemical element. Wikipedia is CC-BY-SA. The BY clause is about attribution. IMHO discoverers of chemical elements deserve attribution. The Tennessine article mentions anonymous members of a team who discovered this element. There is no reason for anonimity here: the subject is known and does not want to be anonymous. Not mentioning her there is a failure to attribute. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia with a lack of space. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 11:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Ad Huikeshoven: I see you mostly edit nlwiki. I'm not sure what the guidelines are like there, but on enwiki the criteria specify multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources (WP:GNG). Almost all of the references the draft has are not independent of Phelps (they are mostly by her employers or from interviews with her, etc.). Could you specify two sources which result in a pass of the notability guidelines? (I don't wish to barrage you with questions, I am just curious because the way you formulated your response seemed to indicate you were accustomed to different criteria for inclusion). – Teratix ₵ 13:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Weak Endorse Her notability largely appeared after she was AFD'd. Before this there was (as far as I can find, even in books about the discovery) no mention that she was unduly notable or important, just another member of the team. There is however now (I think) notability surrounding the deletion of teh article.Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

And from last week [[4]], only one mention of a first, and its not her.Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

ANd here is a source that is even about an award from the The World Young Women's Christian Association that makes no mention of her being first at anything [[5]]. So where did this claim actually originate?Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

A question about the draft, how many of the sources are non trivial third party mentions?, not single paragraphs about minor awards or pages from employers about who they employ, actually material that is substantive (and substantially) about her?Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Allow recreation Deletion of this article was not reasonable or sensible – the ordinary readers that I encounter neither understand nor appreciate such discrimination. The supposed basis for this deletion was notability but that's not a policy and Wikipedia didn't even have it as a guideline in its most successful years, when it was established. Our stronger policies include WP:NOTPAPER – "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover" – WP:PRESERVE – "Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia." – WP:IAR – "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." If we don't provide such sensible content then others will seize the opportunity to make Wikipedia irrelevant and ignored. For example, there's a new project Golden which is targeted at our "arbitrary notability threshold". They plan a platform which is more efficient and more inclusive. I'm going to check this out myself as their approach sounds better than the endless arguments and rule-lawyering that we have here. Roll back the restrictions or roll over and die. Andrew D. (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Andrew, the above is about the most hypocritical thing I've ever seen you say. Saying "notability is not a policy" while at the same time defending your own right to use supposed "notability" to trump more important points of our deletion policy (as you did, for example, here), is ... just the worst. Let alone that you refer to the dark early days of Wikipedia when our encyclopedia was "elementary and often wrong"[6], as its most successful years! Honestly it's not all that surprising coming from someone who has not long ago indicated either a complete inability to recognize obvious copyvio, or a willingness to ignore it if doing so advances the right agenda. (Also, I'm aware that a lot of this has little to do with the article under discussion: the reason is that the comment to which it is responding has almost nothing to do with the article in question.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Recent discussions at AE and DRV show that deletion-related admin actions can in fact go against community consensus if they are labelled as Arbitration Enforcement. Since this article falls under BLP discretionary sanctions, it seems that the only problem with the article re-creation is that it was not labelled as such. –dlthewave ☎ 02:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I read those discussions as exactly the opposite. Deletion related decisions taken under the guise of AE, are invalid unless they follow the normal deletion procedures and normal Deletion Policy. . DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree with DGG. I'm not sure it's settled policy yet as the discussion is ongoing, but deletion actions in areas of discretionary sanctions should be taken to sanction users, and even then in exceptional circumstances, if they are to be taken at all. Discretionary sanctions do not cover content, and I say that as someone who believes administrators should be allowed to delete content as necessary to enforce discretionary sanctions against a user. Restoring content on discretionary sanctions grounds would be absolutely unprecedented. SportingFlyer T·C 09:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Accusations of sexism or discrimination does no ones cause any good. Especially when we cannot even find RS that support many of the claims. If you want to keep this article, find some decent sources. She is not a woman from 200 years ago, this is today. With a ton of writers who seem to spend an inordinate amount of time telling us what we are doing wrong when they could give us the material we need to create an article. If here work is being ignored, we are not the ones ignoring it, the off wiki media are, so get of your high horse and have moan at them (or even get published).Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse not that as an IP in this sort of discussion I expect to have much if any impact. Many insightful comments above but SoWhy is probably the closest to the view. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, it's reflecting the rest of the world, not shining a light on it. If we want the world to recognise the achievements of Women (and indeed any group we think is under valued) then wikipedia isn't the starting point. --81.108.53.238 (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse but Allow Re-Creation - The closer was correct. However, the salting was a single admin decision, not the decision of the community, and should be reversed, and there should be no prejudice to a new draft that provides additional information supporting her biographical notability. I did not say additional sources, because that would be reference-bombing, but additional evidence of additional coverage by reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, efforts at Draft:Clarice Phelps continue to exhibit strong WP:REFBOMBing - the vast majority of the sources there are not independent, not secondary, not reliable, and/or do not cover the subject a depth (and in some cases - [7][8]) - not at all). One would think that at attempt number 4 REFBOMBing would cease (and the article built off of a few solid references) - however it seems that with each go here we are seeing only more very marginal sources being added. Icewhiz (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse and keep SALTed. I'm sorry, but the solution to systemic bias is to create more articles on notable women (there are masses out there that are notable but don't have an article), but not to say "she's a woman, we can't expect her to meet our usual notability guidelines", which is plain insulting in my eyes. I've looked at the current draft and sampled some of the sources. One was an internal slide presentation not even mentioning the subject as far as I can see. I didn't see anything that showed notability for the subject. Of course, a bit more coverage and the controversy around the deletion of the Wikipedia article might become notable, but I would argue against creating an article on the controversy on BLP grounds. Do we really want to have an article about a BLP that goes in detail into how her bio was deleted (multiple times) because WP didn't think she is notable? All this effort could have gone into creating multiple articles on really notable women, such as, say Catharine Rankin (currently President of TWO major international scientific societies), or geneticist Iiris Hovatta, or... or ... etc. Until recently we didn't even have an article about Carmen Sandi, the President of the Federation of European Neuroscience Societies! --Randykitty (talk) 07:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)