Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janet Brumby

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. There's a lot of back-and-forth here, but consensus is that ACADEMIC doesn't apply to this individual, and press releases, while often useful as sources, cannot be used as sources to satisfy notability (this is a longstanding sentiment). It's also worth reiterating that one or a cluster of bios having won an award not meeting notability thresholds does not mean the award is not notable; take it to AfD if you must but I hope people would refrain from single-mindedly nominating other bios. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Brumby

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Janet Brumby (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)

The only basis for notability is a single award. Her position is development manager for an educational charity, which would not normally be a position that would imply any sort of notability. I do not think the award is major enough to confer a presumptive notability. I base this opinion on the award on the description of the career of the recipients listed at Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion and their lack of other notability besides the awards. In almost all cases they are either heads of small businesses that are not themselves notable , or, like Brumby, in less important positions which would not appear significant. DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I failed to find anything in News, or anything significant in Google, (I assume if I searched thoroughly I would find an announcement of thee award and some PR associated with it, which may or may not be in Google, but neither would show notability) and I nominated because I am explicitly challenging that this isa major award. Awards given to people who have no other notability are unlikely to be major. This is a test nomination to see the general consensus, if it succeeds I will examine the other recipients.I've put a notice on the talk page for the award. (BTW, AfD1 was a technical error that has been deleted) DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a vacuous argument. This is a major award, and does confer notability. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Please do not be discourteous to editors who you disagree with. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Hmm. I thought I replied ages ago but it didn't save. I had already read the FT source and should have mentioned that. It doesn't change my mind though since it is just a brief mention so of no use for conferring notability. SmartSE (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as regardless of what news sources I examine, there's nothing actually suggesting noticeably better improvements to completely confirm a better article. SwisterTwister talk 23:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not to be repetitive, but if the award itself is worthy of an article, so should the recipients. It gives me pause knowing that we have articles that are barely two sentences long on obscure fish species but a woman who is doing exceptional things for humanity and is the recipient of a prestigious award isn't deserving of an article? Please forgive me, but I don't understand that way of thinking. Atsme📞📧 02:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
of course we can have articles of prizes where not every recipient is notable: consider Purple Heart. Similarly, we have articles on universities for which not every graduate is notable, and companies where not every executive is notable, and school districts where not every school is notable, and electronic manufacturers for which not all their products are notable. In each case, we get to decide separately whether the mere fact implies notability--some do, some do not. We need an argument why this does independent of "it has a WP article" DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, in essence what you're saying is that the award is not notable; rather, the people who receive it are - which is in itself a contradiction. If the recipients are the ones you consider to be notable, (independent of the award), then you are judging who does and doesn't deserve the award/recognition. My thinking is that YES all recipients of the prestigious award are indeed notable because the award is notable. It is not our job as editors to determine the "degree" of notability anymore than it is our job to determine what species of fish, bird or insect is deserving of a standalone article. Atsme📞📧 22:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I again give you the example of the Purple Heart, a not merely notable but famous award, 99% of whose 1.7 million recipients are not in the least notable. The same is true of the lower ranks of medals of other countries. It is very much our job as editors to determine which awards are prestigious, for otherwise anyone receiving any national level award are notable, no matter how minor the award DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I actually do understand and appreciate the point you're trying to make, DGG. I just don't agree with it, and I'll briefly explain why. Considering the criteria for sports notability where the bar is set so low (having played in at least one regular season or postseason game in a pro league) VS a recipient of the Purple Heart who was injured or killed while saving a life and possibly cost one's own - well, I guess football attracts more readers; therefore, is afforded more coverage in mainstream media, kinda like the Whopper. I think this is one of those instances where we can justifiably IAR. I considered the fact that FEO is university based which makes it academic; therefore, Brumby would meet the criteria for WP:Notability_(academics) in addition to being a recipient of the award. If we also weigh-in on the events associated with receiving such an honor, she passes the notability test. We actually don't have to IAR. Atsme📞📧 03:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Atsme. Looks to me that the award itself does confer some notability. It also is worth commenting that women in business generally are not as well-covered as celebrities or other entertainment figures. Seems to me that adequate indicia of notability is met, though would be nice if there were more sources added. Montanabw(talk) 23:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- per Atsme.--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This award is notable enough to merit article for the recipients. People who receive this award have to do more than just be excellent in business; they also have to have shown significant time investment in community development. The UK website says that "The Queen's Awards for Enterprise are the UK's most prestigious enterprise awards."[3] Atsme's arguments are also important. We shouldn't decide degrees of notability. Something is either notable or it isn't. In this case, the Queen's enterprise award is notable. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"significant time investment in community development" is about the vaguest criterion for an award that I can imagine. DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm paraphrasing the exact words. Did you look at the website, DGG? The site itself says that "The Queen's Awards for Enterprise are the UK's most prestigious enterprise awards." That seems pretty significant. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What the site's web page claims for itself is not evidence for what it actually is. A site's web page is an advertisement, and not a RS. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are incorrect. Some site websites are advertisements. Not all site websites are advertisements. Evaluating a primary-source website should be done on a case-by-case basis just like we do with books and journals. You cannot make a blanket statement like that about a primary source. Some are reliable, and some are not. The UK government's own website is more reliable than Joe-Blow's blog for example. Since this site comes from the UK government and they have accountability, I trust that statement. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the academic connection of FEO and Brumby are what sets her apart from your example. I also don't see where DGG mentioned the academic connection in his reason for deletion. Might want to take note that academia plays a rather significant role in Brumby's notability. The organization [FEO] has its offices at the University’s Enterprise Centre, and includes the Director of the University’s Knowledge Exchange, Bill Walker, among its founders. Brumby who is the organization's Chief Executive and a holder of The Queen's Award for Enterprise promotion said: “It is fantastic news that this unique relationship has been recognised nationally." See WP:Notability (academics)/Precedents for closer similarities. Atsme📞📧 20:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The source says that Brumby is associated with For Entrepreneurs Only (FEO), where she is the Chief Executive. FEO is not a University or Polytechnic but an organization that worked with a University. Brumby is not a professor, she also does not hold a significant post in any University. Stanleytux (talk) 03:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Notability (academics) - ...an academic is someone engaged in scholarly research or higher education, and academic notability refers to being known for such engagement. FEO's and Brumby's academic association with the university is quite clear with regards to higher education. They are partners. The Enterprise Centre is located on campus and is an integral part of the university's business school curriculum. Isn't the primary purpose of a college education to land a good job and/or establish a career? Brumby says,(my bold) "My career history includes the financial (HSBC), education (University of Hull) and charity (Young Enterprise) sectors." [4] Also see, [5] which states: Their role includes educating, by acting as role models and seeking to engage students in more innovative ways by giving motivational talks in schools and colleges.. This is information that belongs in the article provided the creator of the article and other editors are given an opportunity to expand it. Atsme📞📧 04:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The organization could have established their offices in the University for convenience and accessibility purposes.The FEO is not a department in the University, they are an external organization that signed a deal with the University to train people in business. After the deal expires, the organization and the institution will go their separate ways. Brumby does not work at the University, she works at FEO. Her CV would probably say "Janet Brumby: Chief Executive at For Entrepreneurs Only". If you are talking of higher education engagement, a good example would be Samuel Kalagbor, a University senior lecturer and acting Provost of a notable institution but that article was also deleted despite the man's academic connections. Stanleytux (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Could have"? Hmmm...that sounds a bit like WP:OR. Our job is to cite RS, and I see nothing wrong with any of the cited sources. The university itself calls it a "partnership". I provided a link to her bio which states her work as education (University of Hull). I suggest following WP:PAG and tone back the speculation. Thank you for the info on Kalagbor. You've peaked my interest, so I'll give that a review when I have time. Atsme📞📧 16:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is not WP:OR because a source you provided above says "Being based at the heart of the University’s of Hull campus, access to research and support with innovation and technology development is close to hand." Stanleytux (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"being based at the heart of the university of Hull campus..." does not mean bering part of the university. In fact, ambiguous wording like that almost always means just the opposite, that its an organization of some sort that rents space from the University. A padded resume is a sign of non-notability. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't shown anything except to assert that ambiguous wording "almost always means just the opposite." That's an assertion you have to prove. Being based on a campus is an endorsement of the organization by the campus itself, unless you can definitively show otherwise, which you have not. You have also not show that the "resume" is "padded." It's just your opinion. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All that being based on a university campus shows is that the organisation pays its rent. It is certainly not any sort of endorsement by the university. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article has had a long time to improve, yet relies on the single award. I don't buy the idea that the award satisfies Wp:Before - it's essentially a 'job for the boys' industry hand-out given to a lot of glad-handing people after years of service, at let's face it, local level, and not national level. The recipients are local awards - it's just the grandiose title which implies - perhaps less than ingenuously - a national achievement. Onus should be on the article writer to demonstrate the award does in fact satisfy WP:Before and WP:Anybio - which I've yet to see any evidence of, other than pure assertion. I'll gladly change my mind if this can be demonstrated.Tonyinman (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There was a link on the talkpage of the article for the award suggesting this was a "test case" for the notability of recipients of the award. That strikes me as an inherently bad idea. The purpose of the award is to confer national recognition on people whose work promoting enterprise in the regional economy is deemed significant. Such work does not universally meet the standards of notability applied here, and if the award is the only national recognition that it gets then it falls under the guideline WP:ONEEVENT. However, although each article on a recipient has to be assessed on its own merits, on the basis of the sources available, I would consider the award to create an initial presumption in favour of notability. Over the past year or so I have seen a series of AfDs brought specifically against articles on recipients of the Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion, regardless of how well sourced they were, as though the award conveyed a sort of anti-notability. That really has to stop. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 08:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course nobody has claimed that, 86.17.222.157, but the pattern is very clear, and the habit is very tiresome. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - See WP:Notability (academic) - ....to a degree, academics live in the public arena, trying to influence others with their ideas. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable. The sources and national recognition by the Queen's award as well as other awards for FEO = success; therefore, notable according to the guidelines. I also find it troubling per Andreas Philopater comment that a series of AfDs have been brought against recipients of the Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion. The argument that the project is not academic despite it being located on the campus of Hull University and is an integral part of the Business School curriculum is equally as troubling. Also, let's not overlook the fact that Brumby does qualify as an academic per notability guidelines as follows: However, academics, in the sense of the above definition, may also work outside academia (e.g., in industry, financial sector, government, as a clinical physician, as a practicing lawyer, etc.) Atsme📞📧 12:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just got off the phone to Hull University, who said Janet Brumby doesn't (and hasn't) worked there. Since the reference to Hull University is unsourced, perhaps it should be removed. Also, I cannot find any reference to Janet Brumby being an 'academic'. Perhaps you could share your source re this claim? Tonyinman (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to comment - may I suggest that you read my last comment again? Furthermore, WP:Notability (academics) states an academic is someone engaged in scholarly research or higher education, and academic notability refers to being known for such engagement. Brumby doesn't have to work FOR the University to be an academic - she works for FEO who partners with the University of Hull, and as such, she is engaged in higher education. The guideline further states: However, academics, in the sense of the above definition, may also work outside academia (e.g., in industry, financial sector, government, as a clinical physician, as a practicing lawyer, etc.) and their primary job does not have to be academic in nature if they are known for their academic achievements; conversely, if they are notable for their primary job, they do not have to be notable academics to warrant an article. It's pretty clear. Atsme📞📧 04:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although the award is notable, it does not follow that being a recipient of the award makes her notable because notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Brumby is not an academic because although she works on the university campus, she is not employed by the university in any capacity, let alone an academic one. She has not received significant mention in independent sources and so fails GNG. She is already listed in the article listing award winners but she does not have sufficient notability for a separate article. Ca2james (talk) 04:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The point of notability guidelines other than WP:GNG is that they are indications that sources probably exist even if they can't be found online. In the case of this award I find no evidence that its winners generally receive such coverage, so, in the absence of any sources that do any more than show that Janet Brumby received the award, I conclude that she doesn't meet our notability guidelines, and that this award cannot be used as justification of notability without further evidence. Of course this doesn't mean that recipients of the award should be considered unnotable if there is other evidence of notability, but I find it difficult to understand why that issue was brought up in this discussion because there is no other evidence of notability here. The claim that she might meet WP:ACADEMIC is patently absurd, when the only support given for that is that she has rented space on a university campus. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources provided by Megalibrarygirl and Atsme in support of their arguments convince me that there is sufficient national coverage to pass GNG. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which particular sources do you mean? I can't see any provided by either of those editors that comes close to meeting the requirement of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, but if you can show me otherwise I'll be happy to change my opinion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Links to academia to substantiate academic criteria in combo with the Queen's Award and Guardian Award:
These sources aren't enough for notability. Considering each one:
  • University of Hull - this article supports the notability of For Entrepreneurs Only (FEO) because that's covered in the article but does not support Brumby's notabilty. Being CEO of a company - even being quoted as CEO of that company - does not automatically confer notability on a person (because notability is not inherited). BTW this most definitely shows that FEO is a business that partners with the university, but is not part of academia itself.
  • more academia - again demonstrates notability of FEO, and again shows that FEO is most definitely not academia.
  • gosschalks - press release and does not confer notability. Trumpeting one's own horn (or the company's hires) does not count towards notability; notability is not that someone writes about themselves but that others have written about them.
  • kc - another press release.
  • "The Future of Business Volunteering in Education - this appears to be workshop slides where Brumby's name is at the top of several slides but there's nothing here to establish notability. There are quotes from other people on those slides but it's clear the quotes are not by Brumby nor is it clear that they are about her, and so therefore this document does not confer notability on Brumby.
  • UK's leading business and enterprise education charity - this is a pamphlet on which Brumby is the contact person and which she presumably wrote. Authoring a pamphlet does not automatically confer notability unless that pamphlet is discussed in other sources. Ca2james (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment: I fail to see what the problem is with these. They are neutral, they are third-party, and they are extensive. I'm kind of surprised this got relisted, it really can be closed even now as a "no consensus" if not a slight "Keep." Montanabw(talk) 08:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As Ca2james has said, most are not independent - being press releases or documents associated with the subject's employment. Even less debatable though is that they are nowhere near providing the extensive coverage required - they are quotes and mentions and fall way short of what WP:BIO requires and the suggestion she meets WP:ACADEMIC is ridiculous. SmartSE (talk) 09:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons given for "delete" do not take into account a very important statement in WP:Notability (academics); therefore wrongfully deny notability when the crux of her work has been higher education in partnership with the University of Hull. It is very clear. Please read the guideline, particularly the following in the event it was overlooked (my bold underline): Note that as this is a guideline and not a rule, exceptions may well exist. Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for their academic work. It is important to note that it is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of numbers of publications or their quality: the criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field. Also, this proposal sets the bar fairly low, which is natural: to a degree, academics live in the public arena, trying to influence others with their ideas. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable. It really is time to close this AfD because the BLP clearly meets the criteria including being the recipient of a highly notable award from the Queen and also the Guardian University Award; the latter being awarded to the University of Hull's 'For Entrepreneurs Only' project for which Brumby plays a lead role. Atsme📞📧 13:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would also add that there is very important problem that I see cropping up in AfD. The idea that a press-release isn't a reliable source is incorrect. A press-release and a work associated with the subject may be biased, but it can still be a reliable source and valid as per Wiki's policies on notability. These sources may not be independent, however, but they may be reliable and can be used to build a case for notability. The independent source of the award helps to build the case towards notability on the side of independent sources. Some articles have to be created using many different sources with varying levels of bias or independence. We need to look at the big picture which takes all of the information together, rather than piecemeal throwing out sources to fit a different narrative. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Press releases can be reliable sources but since notability is based on what other people say about the person, and not what the person says about themselves, they don't help to establish notability. Ca2james (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Press releases aren't always written by the individual. They can be used to establish notability. Like any source, we have to evaluate on a case-by-case basis. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A point of clarification: FEO is not the University of Hull's project, nor is it in partnership with the university; it is an independent business whose key partners do not include the University of Hull, as is made clear on their About Us page. Even if the university was a key partner, that would neither make FEO part of the university nor would it make FEO an academic organization. Also, FEO received the Guardian award, not Brumby.
WP:ACADEMIC says Most academics are or have been faculty members (professors) at colleges or universities. Also, many academics hold or have held academic or research positions in various academic research institutes (such as NIH, CNRS, etc.). Brumby is not an academic according to this definition.
Reading further, the guideline says However, academics, in the sense of the above definition, may also work outside academia (e.g., in industry, financial sector, government, as a clinical physician, as a practicing lawyer, etc.) and their primary job does not have to be academic in nature if they are known for their academic achievements. I assume that it's this part of the guideline that is being used to call Brumby an academic, based on the (incorrect) idea that renting office space on a university campus makes one an academic.
If renting space on a campus made one an academic, then the people who work at Starbucks or Tim Horton's coffeeshops would be academics and that's patently ridiculous.
Even if, as is being asserted, FEO was part of the university instead of the independent business it is, not everyone who works at a university is an academic - otherwise, cleaning and office staff employed by the university would be considered academics, which is also patently ridiculous.
Similarly, not everything published on or from a university campus is an academic publication, or else job listings and internal newsletters would have to be considered academic publications, which is again patently ridiculous.
Even if the pamphlet and workshop with which Brumby is associated were academic publications - which they are not - there is nothing to indicate that Brumby is known for these publications. In particular, neither Brumby nor these documents meet any of the criteria set forth in WP:ACADEMIC#Specific_criteria_notes. Ca2james (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not correct - the University partners with them and it is actually part of the business school curriculum. Perhaps you should read the cited sources so you'll have a better idea of FEO's and Brumby's relationship. We don't need to clutter this AfD with misinformation in an unwarranted attempt to deny Brumby's notability as the recipient of the Queen's Award in addition to all else that meets the criteria of notability. It is clearly stated in WP:Notability (academics); however, one actually has to read the guideline in order to fully understand it. Atsme📞📧 16:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to this article UHull has taken on FEO ia a corporate partner of UHull (although FEO does not consider the university to be one of their key partners). This means that FEO is a separate business that provides services to the university; it does not mean that FEO is part of academia.
A business and a university may work together but doing so does not imply that the business is part of the university or that the business is part of academia.
Even if it did - even if somehow FEO was an academic institution, which it is not - Brumby's work is not notable as I pointed out above.
I agree that one does have to actually read the guideline to understand it and that this AdD is cluttered with misinformation. I'm sure this is becoming tedious for everyone. Ca2james (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope - you're mistaken about the association but it requires reading more than one article. The University clearly states the association and it is not at all what you interpreted. Regardless, such a claim is irrelevant. I've already explained the associations in my comments above, and I have faith that whoever closes this AfD will be able to figure it out regardless of your misinterpretations. Atsme📞📧 17:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was partly mistaken about the association; there is a partnership between FEO and UHull. FEO helps incubate businesses in the Enterprise Centre, takes in interns, and runs workshops. However, that doesn't make them an academic organization (they're still a business offering their services), and it does not make Brumby an academic. Ca2james (talk) 12:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Stanleytux (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There was no category for Women in Business, or Women Academics, or the like at deletion sorting so I added notice of this Afd at the project, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#Notice of AfD. Atsme📞📧 16:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She's not an academic (despite having an academic employer) and the award is not one for academic accomplishments, so her failure to pass WP:PROF is not relevant. The more relevant notability criterion appears to be WP:GNG, under which we need nontrivial coverage of the subject in multiple reliable sources that are independent of each other and of her. I don't see that standard being met in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sources just not substantial enough to pass GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • From the notability guideline I quoted above: It is important to note that it is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of numbers of publications or their quality: the criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field. Also, this proposal sets the bar fairly low, which is natural: to a degree, academics live in the public arena, trying to influence others with their ideas. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable. The definition for academic for the purpose of the guideline: For the purposes of this guideline, an academic is someone engaged in scholarly research or higher education, and academic notability refers to being known for such engagement. Higher education includes Vocational education. She is clearly an academic because of the role she plays in vocational education - FEO. Jobs - entrepreneurs - students in business school pursuing careers - yes, we do know what that means. She is considered an "academic" according to our PAGs therefore we can lower the bar per the guidelines regarding sources as it applies here. Atsme📞📧 01:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If she qualifies as an academic, which I dispute, she certainly fails all categories of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Doesn't have to be a professor to be an academic. See the guideline definition for academic. Atsme📞📧 01:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what point you are making. She still fails all categories of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • delete per Eppstein & Xxanthippe (& SwisterTwister & DGG) Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Firstly, not every person who won some award at some point in their lives is notable under WP:ACADEMIC. Individuals notable under that part of the guideline are typically notable in other parts as well, and that assumes that this is even the correct guideline here, which I'm not convinced it is. Plenty of people win awards, within academia and without. What matters in the application of WP:ACADEMIC is not just that the individual won some award, but that the award is significant evidence that the subject has made a notable impact on scholarship. Given the lack of other supporting evidence of notability under that guideline, I think it is not unreasonable to conclude that this particular award does not convey the kind of scholastic notability that WP:ACADEMIC demands. Sławomir
    Biały     17:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She doesn't have to meet any criteria other than GNG. It is quite clear from searching the news posts that she is an integral partner in developing business opportunities in Yorkshire. In addition to all of the academic ties, she has been interviewed and written about by a host of media. We as editors don't get to decide if subjects are notable, sources, which repeatedly mention them over time build their notability.: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] SusunW (talk) 23:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These sources are just public relations blurb. An organization that wants to publicize itself sends press releases to media outlets which lazy journalists print, often verbatim. Most of the sources mention her only in passing. There is no detailed examination of her or her work. As for the last source??? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Moreover, these sources are about FEO, not Brumby, and she's really only mentioned in passing. A bunch of passing mentions doesn't add up to notability; notability requires significant mentions in independent sources. Even if these sources were independent, she's not receiving significant coverage in them. Also, FEO is the integral partner here and even if it's notable, it doesn't follow that Brumby, as CEO of FEO, is automatically notable because notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Ca2james (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We have an editor who finds additional sources and you want to say they are not notable because 1) Press releases 2) about her work. First of all press releases can be reliable sources (if potentially biased). Second, a person is often notable for their work. Taken as a whole, mentions do add to notability. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weight has nothing to do with length of a source. Significance has to do with depth and import. 2000 pages of trifle do not make someone notable. A single statement that they are someone of import which impacts their community has weight. That it is repeatedly mentioned is allowed per WP guidelines to be combined for adequate coverage. She is being interviewed because SHE is seen as the "face" of FEO. If she weren't, the articles would be interviewing someone else who was deemed notable. SusunW (talk) 02:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is every PR spokesperson notable? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
That is a vacuous question. We are not discussing every PR spokesperson. Only the ones presented. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 02:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a vacuous question. It is a well-defined question to which a well-defined answer can be given, although the answer given may differ from person to person. Remember that other editors may not be as familiar with policy as you are so please treat them with courtesy. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
My apologies for calling your question "vacuous." What I mean is that your question is way too broad and despite what you say, it wasn't well-defined. We aren't talking about all PR spokespeople. We need to evaluate the source of each article. I wasn't trying to be "uncourteous" but you should try to be more specific with your inquiries. Sorry I hurt your feelings, Xxanthippe. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The media interviews whoever the company will let them interview. If the media thought she was notable (which isn't the same as Wikipedia notability) they'd do an in-depth piece on her and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Also, WP:GNG specifically excludes press releases in establishing notability. Ca2james (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, "If the media thought she was notable...they'd do an in-depth piece on her" has been proven over time not to be the case. Media bias is real. I spent the entire day working on sourcing a noted woman artist. The only way sources were found on her was to 1) figure out who she was married to and 2) search for them. Amazing how many sources said, Mrs. sonso, who paints under the name of ... She had a professional name. Media refused to use it, as it does with many women. Media coverage of women is not the same as media coverage of men. And no, I am not asking for exceptions to be made. Is there sufficient information to confirm notability. I think that there is. You think that there isn't. That is a difference of opinion, not a guideline. SusunW (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point of the anecdote. Do you suggest that the subject of the present AfD has another name under which she is better known? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
@SusunW: Media bias may be real but it's all we have to go by. Substituting our own bias, in the absence of sources, isn't an improvement. Also, if your artist really was noted, there would be sources on her. That's literally what it means to be noted. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: My reply to you both is that sourcing for women is different. Harder to find, less lengthy. Weight becomes much more important than length. She won an Emmy for design goes much father toward establishing notability than a longer article which gives minutia of detail about her childhood and education. In this case, she won a queens award, is weighty. SusunW (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For Pete's sake - it's the combination of the Queen's Award, the multiple sources and recognition plus all the other reasons that were given above. The argument that FEO is notable but not Brumby is like saying Apple is notable but not Steven Jobs. m( Atsme📞📧 05:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing is indeed critical for confirming notability. I am quite sure I said that it was and that no one was asking for exceptions. There is adequate sourcing here. I concur with Atsme's evaluation. SusunW (talk) 07:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with David and Xxanthippe. Press releases are not considered to be independent sources, under WP:ORGIND, and do not contribute to the notability of the subject. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They're not all press releases, some are news events, several are academic. Furthermore, WP:BLP states:
Using the subject as a self-published source: Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:
*it is not unduly self-serving;
*it does not involve claims about third parties;
*it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
*there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
*the article is not based primarily on such sources.
Counting the number of cited sources, the recognition for being the recipient of and/or profiled in two highly prestigious awards, being involved in charitable work with the University of Hull, being recognized for her exceptional contributions to academia per the numerous listed sources above, it becomes rather clear that the woman is notable. What this article needs is a chance to grow but if we're investing all of our time explaining notability guidelines, we aren't spending it building an encyclopedia. Atsme📞📧 14:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just because press releases "can be used as sources" does not mean that they are independent sources as required by GNG. Also, I remain unconvinced that recipients of this award are notable. Is everyone who won some award sometime in thir lives notable? Sławomir
Biały 15:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not every source has to be "independent." We have to take all of the sources together. Some are independent, some are not. What is important is that there are 1) reliable sources 2) at least one of them is independent. In this case, we have reliable sources that are press releases, academic sources and news sources. The award is independent. Not every source has to be both reliable and independent. The practice of throwing out sources because they are not independent is not a good way to build the case that the subject is not notable. We need to look at the whole of the sources and not just throw out the ones that aren't independent. We need to control for bias, however, in these situations, but bias does not take away from notability. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that non-independent sources (i.e. primary) can be used, but for establishing notability per GNG, the independence of sources is absolutely critical. We can't take small mentions in independent sources and primary coverage and use this to establish notability. SmartSE (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Atsme and SusunW. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the walls of text many opinions (I just realised that my original wording might be taken as disparaging, but I meant nothing of the sort. It makes a very refreshing change for a deletion discussion to be a proper, civil, discussion, rather than consist of disconnected statements of opinion that take no account of previous opinions) that have been presented above it's difficult to see where I should make a reply, so I'll do it here as a separate comment. We are asked to keep this article for several reasons. One is on the basis of WP:ACADEMIC. Even if we were to accept that this guideline is even applicable, which I and others do not, it would certainly not be passed, and no argument has been made detailing how Brumby would pass it. We are then invited to accept press releases by the subject's business and other self-published sources as evidence towards passing the general notability guideline, which clearly states that independent sources are required. We then get a few instances of Brumby getting quoted in the local press. Well, my son has been quoted far more times in a local newspaper covering a catchment area at least as large as these, but this is simply because one of his friends used to be a reporter for it. Local newspapers just use the easiest available people to provide quotes, not notable people. If anything such barrel-scraping has strengthened my opinion that this should be deleted, because several people have obviously tried very hard to find some notability here, but have not managed to do so. The elephant in the room here is that we have some editors who are keen to address the undoubted imbalance between women and men in our biographical articles, but are going about it in the wrong way. The way to do that is to create articles about the many notable women who are missing from Wikipedia, not to try to defend an article about a clearly unnotable person. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your perspective on the situation. I agree with your final conclusion. Another matter that I would like editors to give attention to is the welfare of the subject of the BLP. I do not know if the creator of the BLP asked the permission of its subject before writing it (perhaps he could tell us), but if he did not, the subject, through no fault of her own and because of the ill-judged creation of an inadequately sourced BLP and the persistence of its defenders, has had her professional reputation trashed in public. That can't be good for her career. Because of the low level of female representation in Wikipedia, I think a case could be made for the notability standards for female BLPs to be lower than those of males. However, this should be determined in policy forums and not imported by stealth into individual BLPs. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    Any trashing of the subject's professional reputation should certainly be redacted. Could you present a diff to the competent authorities? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is possible that this BLP will be deleted (there is a lack of any in-depth source to support it), it would be best for the whole of this AfD discussion to be suppressed (i.e. removed from Wikipedia, I think WP:Oversight is the term), to reduce embarrassment for the subject. In the event of the BLP being recreated, it could be restored to be available for any further AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
My main concern here in this AfD is that sources which are reliable are being thrown out. These sources are there to support the larger claim of notability which started this discussion in the first place: the award. I am glad to see many commenters support the creation of women's bios and I hope you will consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red to help out! However, going back to the award: it is the most important business related award in the UK. That does confer notability. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the invitation. You will have noted from my contribution list that I have made many edits to the BIOs of notable women. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
You're welcome. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And what evidence do you have that the Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion is the most important business related award in the UK? I worked in business for several decades in the UK, and regularly read newspaper business sections here, but had never heard of this particular award before I came across this deletion discussion. I'm all for increasing Wikipedia's content about notable women, of whom probably millions don't yet have articles, but I'm not in favour of accepting the type of junk sources that have been offered here in support of notability for anyone of either sex. We owe it to article subjects and our readers to ensure that we only write on the basis of good-quality independent reliable sources, which these, despite your protestations, are not. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The argument here seems to be that the hundred or so of recipients of this award since its inception in 2005, on this list, is automatically notable. That seems fairly indiscriminate to me. Generally "notability based on such-and-so award", the award is more clearly selective, and there is clear evidence that it is regarded as a substantial professional achievement. For example, if someone wins a Nobel Prize or Field's Medal, they are automatically notable. In contrast, winners of the Putnam Mathematics Competition, although that is a very prestigious award, are not generally regarded as notable enough for biographies. Awards have to be pretty important to be a ipso facto justification for an encyclopedia article. Is there any clear, independent, assessment of the Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion demonstrating that it represents a similar, highly selective degree of achievement that is widely regarded as one of the pinnacles of attainment in that particular area of work? Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And if we're looking for the top awards for businesspeople in the UK we'd start with a peerage, then would come a knighthood/damehood (both of which would undoubtably confer notability), then a CBE (which is more arguable, but I would argue in favour of it conferring notability), then an OBE and an MBE (which definitely wouldn't confer notability), and below that the various categories of the Queen's Award for Industry (which is well known in itself as an award but in general goes to unnotable small businesses, and this particular category is not well known). 86.17.222.157 (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: She is not an academic, so WP:ACADEMIC does not apply here. Receiving an award along with 10 other people that is awarded every year (no matter how famous, notable, or prestigious the award is) does not necessarily confer notability in and of itself (see the Purple Heart discussion above). WP:BIO applies here, and I don't feel she meets it. I believe that if there was some non-trivial amount of comprehensive news coverage, then we might have a better chance of meeting notability guidelines. There are some comments above about her reputation being "trashed", I don't see it being trashed here, we are discussed her notability purely in the context of a Wikipedia article using the definitions and guidelines of Wikipedia - this has nothing to do with her reputation, she seems very reputable, diligent, and hard-working and this is the impression I received from reading the above discussion. Chrisw80 (talk) 07:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your assessment of the subject's work and I am sorry that she has been put through this unnecessary ordeal. That is why I suggested above that this Afd should be redacted upon closure. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I also think that she has not been "trashed" professionally in this discussion. We have focused on whether or not the 1) award is enough to confer notability, 2) and if the sources are "good" enough to establish notability. No one has made a personal attack on the subject of the article. I think this AfD should stand for 2 reasons: 1) it is being used as a test case by DGG and 2) all Wiki transactions should be kept as long as they are not violations of a person's reputation. Arguing whether or not there is notability here doesn't violate that at all. Whatever the choice of the closer of the AfD (Delete, Keep, No Consensus), I think it's important to keep our discussion along with it. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I, for one, would certainly have supported deletion if I had seen the AfD discussion that you linked above. Our notability standards for pornographic actors are ridiculously lax as that is a field in which independent reliable sources are very rare. The problem with that field is that few of the editors who support such lax standards are interested in having a polite, reasoned discussion about the matter such as we are having here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with the close at that AfD discussion, which should have been "no consensus". I do not feel qualified to comment whether that award is a sufficient condition for notability under WP:PORNBIO. It is often the case that subject-specific notability criteria are mutually noncommensurable. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
that we have absurdly lax standards for pornographic actors is not an argument to have absurdly lax standards everywhere else as well. (In actual fact, the standards even for porn actors have tightened in the last few years,they used to be even worse , ) DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this AfD is based on a contradiction because while it proclaims the Queen's Award as notable, it discounts the recipients of the award which is actually what makes the award notable, even after Brumby's notability has been substantiated by multiple sources, the subject's participation in higher education, her involvement with the University of Hull as a contributor to higher education through the University's partnership with FEO, by independent RS and a 2nd notable award for which she was involved as a participant. I'm shaking my head at the thought that you're asking for this discussion to be redacted. Are ashamed of your comments because if they are true, you shouldn't be. Atsme📞📧 21:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The contradictions here are in your own statements. Of course an award that is notable can have recipients who are not notable, per the examples of the Purple Heart and the Blue Peter badge that were made above, which are notable awards of whom the recipients, including me in the latter case, are not notable by virtue of receiving the award. And, again, as explained repeatedly above, being engaged in higher education does not make anyone notable. They need to pass the requirements of WP:PROF to do so, which Brumby, despite worthy achievements, does not, and no argument has been made in this discussion that she does. The point about redacting the discussion is a complete red herring introduced by one editor that doesn't have any bearing on the acceptability of this article. Please let's keep this discussion on track rather than turning it into a battleground, which all of the other participants here have managed to avoid doing. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2016 (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/Janet_Brumby&oldid=1097982028"