Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deborah McGuinness

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 of the debate was keep. —Cleared as filed. 03:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah McGuinness

marked as a speedy A7 but it is not. Reason given Self-promoting entry, which practise is _strongly discouraged_. (Note topic and creator appear to be same; "article" reads like an advert. No vote --Doc ask? 13:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC) -Doc ask? 13:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment due to having had some contacts with the subject (I met her a couple of times), I prefer not vote on this article. However, I would like to mention that the number of publications, and in particular the number of citations to the subject's work [1] places her well above the "average college professor", as required by WP:BIO. Not to mention that she is a co-director of a Stanford lab. - Liberatore(T) 13:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no reason why Prof. McGuiness shouldn't be mentioned in the field of AI research alongside other AI researchers. The article would be better if it placed her academic achievements in context, which would also justify its inclusion. -- (aeropagitica) UK 15:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very notable in the fields of Semantic Web and Ontologies (OWL especially). Google Scholar turns up over 100 publications and she's heavily cited also. Dlyons493 Talk 15:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yes, subject appears to be well-respected in her field, however this is not the issue at hand. Should researchers be encouraged to create their own Wikipedia entries based on their own assessment of their level of recognition in the field? This appears to be flagrant disregard for Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, especially since creator/subject makes sweeping claims about her own importance and reputation. Recommend article be removed, and a fresh one started, authored by one of the above (or other) colleagues supportive of an entry for this subject (if they so choose) in order to avoid appearance of Wikipedia as a forum for self-advocacy of subjects at any level of recognition. - Democritus
    • That's a valid point, but it's so easy for someone to create an account and add the article that it actually seems preferable to me to accept (but not encourage) articles from the people themselves. That at least gives a little accountability to something otherwise completely unenforcable. Dlyons493 Talk 16:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Observation Such acceptance is the very source of the encouragement. And if it is your position is that it is preferable to have people create articles about themselves, due to increased "accountability" of the material contained therein, then please familiarise your self with WP:AUTO#Creating_an_article_about_yourself, which clearly states a position rather different to that. - D
  • Keep and cleanup if you're concerned about WP:AUTO (which is only a guideline, and it seems to me to not apply in general for "notable people") (ESkog)(Talk) 18:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - Are you advocating a system of maintaining two standards regarding creation of self-promoting encyclopedia entries, one standard for those who deem themselves important, and another for those who deem themselves not? - D
      • Answer Sure, I guess it's a double standard. But it's not "those who deem themselves important" but rather "those who we deem important." If Michael Jackson had created his article, we wouldn't be rushing to delete it. However, if local sixth-grader James Noname creates his, then I would be of the opinion that WP:AUTO applies. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Dlyons493 and others above. Seems clearly notable in her field. u p p l a n d 19:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The case for "notability" of this particular subject is certainly undermined by the fact that no-one (other than the subject herself) perceived adequate notability to feel moved to create an entry. This is exactly why the the creation of self-promoting articles is strongly discouraged; no-one is capable of judging their own "importance". If this subject is indeed notable, then let this be evidenced by someone of at least nominal neutrality taking such note, in the form of an independently created article. - D
  • Keep as per Dlyons493 et al, as long as the subject doesn't try to claim control over the content. CarbonCopy (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above votes. Nope, nothing wrong here. --King of All the Franks 23:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - while I share Democritus's concern that any self-edited article is going to be inherently biased, I also think it's a matter that should be decided on a case-by-case basis. The Deborah McGuinness article is not bad at all and does not seem unduly promotional to me. I don't feel like it would be appropriate to delete it just to make a point. Tim Pierce 12:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Either action, keeping or deleting, will send a message of some kind. If it is kept, then let us please change the guideline described at WP:AUTO#Creating_an_article_about_yourself from "Creating articles about yourself is strongly discouraged", to, "If you would like to create an article about yourself, because in your opinion the evidence indicates that you are important, then create one. All such articles will be handled on a case-by-case basis, in which a debate and arbitration process will determine whether you were correct in your conclusion that you are, in fact, important." - D
  • Keep. Programme chair, dozens of invited talks at conference, holds five patents - looks notable to me. She isn't judging her own importance, it has been made verifiably clear that her peers have judged her important. Average Earthman 01:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment But, if so, then let those peers themselves evince that they have "judged her important" by creating a Wikipedia article to honour that importance. Yet so far they have failed to do so, and this subject merely called attention to herself, flouting the objectivity criterion. But notable or not, anyone may perceive evidence from which they conclude they are important. If Wikipedia guidelines are that we create our own pages if we decide that we are important, thereby generating case-by-case-by-case calls for arbitration, then so be it. The current stated guideline, which is quite the reverse, should be revised to reflect this. The need then arises for further guidelines by which one may determine that one's conclusions about one's own importance are proper. Is this viable? Currently, there is clear and simple system in effect. A different system could be considered, but when reduced to practice, either all should feel free to create their own pages if they have concluded they are notable, or, none should create articles about themselves. - D
  • Comment Allow me too clarify something that seems to be getting overlooked. I am not challenging (nor endorsing) the encyclopaedia-worthiness of this subject. I am asking whether this process, what we are all doing right now, is the method by which future self-created articles will be decided for inclusion. (And if not, then why for this person and not others?) If yes, then let the process be so, but, let us change the posted guideline to reflect the practised reality. - Democritus
    • Comment - WP:AUTO says "Creating articles about yourself is strongly discouraged," not "Creating articles about yourself is forbidden." It also notes that this is "guideline," not "policy." I agree entirely that it's a bad idea, and most such pages wind up getting submitted to AfD. I have done a lot of these myself. I also think there's a reason why this isn't a hard and fast rule, and this situation is an example of why. Tim Pierce 23:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment If we are to quote the source, then let us do it more fully: "Creating or editing an article about yourself, your business, your publications, or any of your own achievements is strongly discouraged. If you do create an article about yourself, it will likely be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. If you or your achievements are verifiable and notable; and are thus are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will create an article about you sooner or later. People are generally unable to determine whether they are themselves encyclopedic."

        By applying these guidelines selectively, as is being proposed, you merely open the door to all comers who have determined, by whatever means, that they are "encyclopedic", to feel free to promote that fact in Wikipedia, resulting in more work and more time spent on maintenance, and in the meantime, further jeopardising the already roundly-debated credibility of this resource.

        In summary, if this article, or others like it, stand, then ammending WP:AUTO along the following lines would be appropriate, and would accurately reflect the state of affairs: "As a matter of practise, if you guess correctly that you or your accomplishments will be decided noteworthy, then a self-created article promoting this fact is fine and is not likely to be deleted. Therefore, those who have concluded, based on the available evidence, that they themselves are an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article, need not take "strongly discouraged", as mentioned herein, very seriously." - D

        • In most cases, not creating an autobiographical article is good advice, as it is usually a waste of effort and frequently leads to a deletion discussion which can be somewhat humiliating to the author/subject. But it is just not a big deal when it happens, if the subject does happen to meet our notability criteria and the information is verifiable. It may also be noted that as long as articles are written under pseudonym we have no way to know for sure who actually wrote an article. If the author in this case had taken the username User:SuperMarioFan2000, rather than User:Dmcguinness, nobody would have suspected that the author was Deborah McGuinness. For all I know, User:Dmcguinness could be some random computer geek in Taiwan (or at least somebody else at Stanford). I see no reason to change the guideline. u p p l a n d 14:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - applying this guideline selectively is an inevitable result of using selective language to define it. If the appropriate guideline should be "creating an article about yourself is forbidden," then it would be a very good idea to take this argument to WP:AUTO and obtain a consensus for that statement. But as it stands I think that the complaint about inconsistency is just meaningless. Tim Pierce 16:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Indeed. As the policy states, the artice was listed on articles for deletion, where deletion is not certain (but is rather judged case by case.) Strongly discouraged is not the same thing as prohibited, if you want to actually prohibit get consensus to say so in the policy. CarbonCopy (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. We appear to have a lack of verifiability and the article does not provide any information on how she passes WP:BIO in its present state. Stifle 00:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • External links to the lab at Stanford University count as verifiable to me. Average Earthman 10:13, 4 January 2006 (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/Deborah_McGuinness&oldid=1085504599"