Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Rauscher (2nd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 keep. This is a borderline case between a keep and a no consensus closure, but the material difference between them is nil, and there is in no way a consensus to delete. Courcelles 23:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Rauscher

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

No apparent claim of notability. Doesn't seem to meet either WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. See also the remarks on the article talk page.TR 15:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC) TR 15:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I now see this article has been deleted before in 2008. Probably should have been speedied.TR 15:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I closed it as G4 on the basis that it was essentially the same as the earlier article; User:Slim Virgin asked me to revert for further discussion, and rather than go through Deletion Review, it seemed simpler to do just that. I don't see the need to relist, as it was just one day. There is at least one relevant additional reference, as now visible on Jack Sarfatti. At this point, I have no opinion; I await further arguments. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Rauscher was the co-founder in 1975 of the Berkeley Fundamental Physics Group, an informal group of physicists who met every Friday for brainstorming sessions, and whose work helped to keep alive certain philosophical ideas about quantum physics that now form the basis of quantum information science. As a result, the group's work is being explored and re-evaluated, most recently by David Kaiser of MIT in his How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture and the Quantum Revival (2011). Rauscher was a central member of this group—and Kaiser refers to her quite a bit—arranging meetings and introducing people to each other. Her bio should be given a chance to be developed carefully, based on Kaiser's research and any future publications spawned by it.

    We have articles on most of the other key members of the Fundamental Physics Group: Henry Stapp, Fred Alan Wolf, Nick Herbert, Fritjof Capra, Jack Sarfatti, and John Clauser. Rauscher was, I believe, the only woman member, as well as co-founder, so it would be unfortunate to delete her bio just as people are getting interested in the history of the group. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 05:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: She is mentioned (very briefly) by Hugh Gusterson, in Nature 476, 278–279 (18 August 2011 doi:10.1038/476278a Published online 17 August 2011 ) in his review of the book How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture, and the Quantum Revival David Kaiser W. W. Norton: 2011. 372 pp. $26.95, £19.99. and although many of us might find some of her stuff fringe I think there is enough for notability. This quote seems to me to help This meant that some of the key work in quantum mechanics in the 1970s and 1980s was done by a motley crew of young physicists, who worked largely outside universities and published in obscure journals such as Epistemological Letters — “a hand-typed, mimeographed newsletter”. They included Elizabeth Rauscher, Jack Sarfatti, Fred Alan Wolf, Saul-Paul Sirag, John Clauser and Fritjof Capra. The centre of their intellectual universe was the San Francisco Bay area. Many were associated with the Fundamental Fysiks Group, an open discussion group about quantum mechanics that started meeting in 1975 at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in California.. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk))
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have also mentioned it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's History. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 22:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete. Rauscher's record in physics is remarkably average (e.g. h-index of 5 over a 50 year career). The comment above erroneously argues the founding of the Fundamental Physics Group (FPG) toward Rauscher's notability. FPG is not an article itself, but rather a redirect to a paragraph in the Jack Sarfatti article. Rauscher is mentioned in 1 sentence there, though there's no sourcing for her or her role in FPG. In fact, the Kaiser lecture, which is the main source in that paragraph, does not even mention Rauscher at all. It mainly focuses on Jack Sarfatti and Fred Alan Wolf. The argument that articles on other members of FPG exist is nothing more than WP:WAX. In fact, those people are all demonstrably notable, for example John Clauser (h-index 21, Wolf Prize in Physics), Nick Herbert (author of Quantum reality : beyond the new physics with WorldCat holdings >1500), or Henry Stapp (95 peer-reviewed papers, most 1st authored h-index 16) and their articles are generally well-sourced. Rauscher's record of accomplishment is very obviously not in the league of these folks. Rather, she seems to be more associated lately with Nassim Haramein, whose WP article has been repeatedly deleted for lack of notability. As for the Nature source cited above, the sum total of content there is "They included Elizabeth Rauscher,...(list of others)" – this the archetypical trivial mention. Indeed, everything one might consider in assessing Rauscher indicates that she's a minor figure at best and not notable in the way WP guidelines require. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Clear keep. Besides the mention in this article in Nature yesterday, there are 176 references in Google Books, including top sources like this University Chicago Press book or this from Taylor & Francis. --JN466 17:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • More trivial mentions. For instance, the University of Chicago book cite is actually an article about Henry Stapp: "A Science for Jacob: Henry Stapp and the Bell's Theorem Group". Here's the entirety of the content on Rauscher: "Zukav...thanks...Elizabeth Rauscher...". It says precisely nothing about Rauscher – nothing more than a name drop. Agricola44 (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    • That's not the entirety of the content; the entirety of the content is, "Elizabeth Rauscher, who founded the Fundamental Physics Group and encouraged nonphysicists to attend". She is likewise described as having "organized the Fundamental Fysicks Group at the Berkeley lab in 1974] in Newsweek. --JN466 18:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry I left out those extra 11 words. The point I'm making is that it's one part of one sentence that's devoted to her. Sources all seem to repeat the same talking point, essentially that she organized this informal group of physicists (a group not notable per se) and encouraged people to join it. Perhaps you're arguing that the number of sources repeating this is high enough to add up to notability? Agricola44 (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    • I could have added the next 100 words too, because the book goes on to say that among those attending the group Rauscher founded at Berkeley, "Zukav lists Fritjof Capra, John Clauser, who would later help to establish experimentally the truth of Bell's Theorem, and Fred Wolfe, who would go on to write a number of popular books on the mysticism of physics. In short, this was a small group of intellectuals who first gathered in the early 1970s at Berkeley to explore how consciousness and energy might be related and then met annually at Esalen in the late '70s and early '80s to continue their conversations. What they said, and particularly what some of them wrote, would have a major impact on the American alternative religious scene." Rauscher founded a group that was to have a notable impact on 1970s and 1980s culture and beyond, and will be of interest to readers. --JN466 19:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet again Rauscher is not mentioned in your prolix post. As I said above, these individuals (John Clauser et al.) are demonstrably notable for work they did individually, not because of being associated with some informal group. I think this point is crucial. The same cannot be said of Rauscher, as her remarkably average scientific record attests. You're basically pushing the view that Rauscher inherits notability by association with these people. Agricola44 (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • She is a notable figure in the history of science as the founder and organizer of a group that has exerted an influence no one expected them to have at the time they were active. If she fails PROF or AUTHOR, fine, that doesn't matter; there are other criteria. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 22:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What other criteria? You seem to be arguing that Rauscher is notable for inviting important physicists to meet "every Friday for brainstorming sessions", even though the subsequent "intellectual fruits" of the individuals in this group do not seem to include any real contributions from Rauscher herself. In other words, she's notable because of being associated with these people. I consider it differently. I see no substantive sources that document Rauscher, herself or her work, only trivial mentions. I see a very mediocre record in physics, as gleaned from the standard citation databases, over a 50-year career. I see no significant positions held, no prestigious awards, no widely held books she's authored (unless you consider the holographic multiverse book in 68 libraries to be "widely held"), no origination of a siginificant new concept, and so on and so forth. In short, I can't find anything in the gamut of notability guidelines under which she would pass. Sorry. Agricola44 (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • I'm arguing that she's notable because notable writers, including academics, have written about her. All the Wikipedia buzz words (PROF, AUTHOR, etc) refer to a guideline that offers suggestions, but that no one is obliged to follow. The bottom line in any notability consideration is the question: "are reliable sources writing about this person or topic?" And the answer here is yes. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 04:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree, except that you've left out the critical point that the sources are all trivial. The arguments you and several others have used here suggest you're willing to "lower the bar" for this case. Why? Agricola44 (talk) 16:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. The delete arguments seem to be confusing notability and importance. WP is full of articles about obscure ancient Romans who unremarkably held a few offices and are known from only scattered mentions in ancient histories, or Renaissance humanists who wrote a few letters to Erasmus and produced some texts as editors/translators but no extant original work, or minor 19th-century artists who hung out with Rodin and created work for local parks and churches. These are all historically notable because they contribute to a more complete understanding of intellectual or cultural history, but there may not be a monograph or even a journal article devoted exclusively to the individual; their articles are compiled from short passages or mentions in a larger context. I don't see what the encyclopedia would gain from deleting such figures. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFF exists is not a proper argument in a deletion debate.TR 08:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, no. You miss the point: that figures can be notable while being minor. WP:OSE explicitly cautions editors not to use it for trying to reinvent the wheel, and addresses the difference between notability and importance (major/minor): see WP:OSE#Precedent in usage. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And you seem to misunderstand the meaning of notability on wikipedia. The only true measure of notability on wikipedia is, if a person has been subject of significant coverage in independent sources per WP:GNG. If yet to see any of the keep arguments produce an explicit example of such coverage.TR 13:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Kaiser alone contains about forty pages discussing Rauscher. --JN466 15:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The notability policy says that "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." That's self-evidently the case here, since someone who doesn't know who Elizabeth Rauscher is (like me) can read the article and come away with a knowledge of what her significance is. The following remark from an IP also helps place this figure in her cultural context; it's a stated goal of the Foundation to involve more women editors and to improve coverage of topics pertaining to women. Again, I don't see what WP gains by deleting such figures, or how such deletion contributes to the goal of providing comprehensive coverage of encyclopedic topics. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment "At that time, nationwide, women earned only 5% of the undergraduate degrees in physics, and less than 2% of the physics PhDs." 98.163.75.189 (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even back when it was in this state, that physicist was clearly notable. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is another good example of the puffery that might confuse some folks who are not familiar with the internal workings of the academic world. Consider "She was a professor of nuclear science and astrophysics with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory from 1962 until 1979, and served as its chair from 1974 to 1977" – implying she was chair of a department of nuclear science and astrophysics. Of course, chair of a department is often a very good indicator of notability, but this statement applies to the informal physics group we've been discussing (see Rauscher's own CV). Therefore, this statement is extremely misleading, at best because "chair" is completely informal in this case, not a formal and proper title as recognized in academia. Makes all the difference. Agricola44 (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    • If a condescending tone is necessary to make your case, it's probably based on preconceptions of what's "important" rather than whether the sources support including this figure as a participant in a particular moment of intellectual history. Anyone familiar with the "internal workings of the academic world" would know that a woman active in physics during this period is notable as an aspect of women's history if sufficient RS document her activities. The early stage of women entering a traditionally all-male field is notable historically. As Slim Virgin and others have pointed out, there are broader historical considerations here than there would be for a BLP under WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. An argument for deletion that evokes "notability by association" is in error, because it applies to mere association, not active participation as a minor figure. Rauscher was a participant, not somebody's cousin or lover who was merely "associated". Cynwolfe (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it seems we agree then that she was a minor figure. This would seem to put the burden on those who want to keep the article to show that she made contributions as a minor participant. In turn, this would mean showing publications that had some sort of impact – thus bringing us back to the usual metrics of citations, h-index, book holdings, and the like. However, it's already conclusively established that Rauscher's grades here are way below what we take as showing notability. Agricola44 (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Yes, I absolutely agree that she was minor figure; but "minor" is a judgment of importance, not a consideration of WP notability, as there are plenty of minor figures (of the sort I listed above) who are historically notable; that is, they contribute to a comprehensive understanding of a particular intellectual movement, military campaign, or government, and their participation is noted in RS. That's why I think the emphasis on this discussion should remain on whether the sources are sufficient, and whether her notability can be stated in a way that makes it clear to someone who hadn't heard of her before. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Fails WP:PROF; with quite a low citation count, no major award or associations as far as I can see, no named chair etc, and no evidence of notability outside academia. The article seems to suggest notability by association with Fritjof Capra etc., but WP:NOTINHERITED. A case could be made for notability under WP:GNG based on the books cited, although I am not in a position to check how substantial the discussion of Rauscher in those books is. -- 202.124.75.136 (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "Not inherited" does not apply; Rauscher was not simply related to one of the figures in the group. She was a co-founder and active in her own right. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We could probably settle this with some more sources on her specific activities within the group. -- 202.124.75.72 (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep More than ample sources in the article now that explain the significance of this scientist. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sufficient sources to establish notability even beyond WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR; and per the above keep comments by Cynwolfe, Jn466 and SlimVirgin. Dreadstar ☥ 18:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Slimvirgin that the subject does not pass WP:Prof or WP:Author. The only possibility is WP:GNG under WP:Fringe, but I do not see that the sources are sufficient for that. The subject has not made the primary impact in that area as such figure as, for example, Velikovsky. One editor suggests that the standards of notability for females should be lower than for males. This has never been Wikipedia policy. Another editor makes comparisons with Ancient Romans who have articles in Wikipedia. If the subject is being discussed in 2000 years time then I am sure that Wikipedians of that era will be only too pleased to approve an article. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • No one has suggested that standards of notability should be lower for women. But one thing that concerns me about PROF is that it's written from an entirely male perspective, and a mainstream one. It perfectly fits someone who went to university at 18, graduated at 21, obtained his PhD at 24, entered a laboratory, and spent the rest of his life publishing, publishing, publishing. It doesn't easily accommodate women who struggled to get accepted when almost all of their peers were men. It doesn't accommodate people with alternative ideas and approaches, people with interrupted careers, people who for whatever reason remained outside the "publish till you drop" model. So we are defining notability in a way that is more likely to exclude women, and particularly women from a certain era. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 02:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are saying exactly that standards of notability should be lowered for females. Wikipedia judges notability on the basis of outputs, not inputs. For example, many people are born into a poverty which excludes them from the educational opportunities that might give them the possibility of achieving the academic notability described by WP:Prof. We do not make allowance for any circumstances that might have hindered achievement. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I'm saying we should judge notability by whether reliable sources write about that person. We shouldn't judge it by whether she has an "h-index of 5," which is an artificial, algorithmic way of looking at things, and not the only measure of achievement. It is not our job to measure achievement. It's up to the sources to decide whether this person is worth writing about, for whatever reason. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 03:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You change the subject. h-index, which it is helpful to read, is an objective way of determining eligibility for WP:Prof#C1 by peer comparison. For physicists, past precedent on these pages is that an h-index of around 15 is need to clearly satisfy WP:Prof#C1. As h-index is a non-linear measure, this subject's score of 5 falls very short of that mark, as pointed out by Agricola44. To revert to topic: I am an occasional editor of articles on eminent women, for example Antonia Fraser, Mary Louisa Molesworth, Pamela Hansford Johnson, Susan Hill, Ada Lovelace, Ann Widdecombe (who is regularly subject to spiteful vandalism). These women have one thing in common, they all achieved Wikipedia notability on the basis of their own achievements, nobody made special dispensation for them because they were women. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I'd appreciate if you wouldn't refer to "lower standards" and "special dispensation." If you want to argue that Rauscher isn't notable in your terms or in PROF terms as a physicist, then okay. PROF is just a guideline focusing on one narrow notabiity parameter. The only thing that matters for Wikipedia is whether reliable sources have written about her and her work, and they have, including most recently and extensively David Kaiser, a physicist and historian of science at MIT. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 06:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No one is saying that notability standards should be lowered for women; the point being made is that this woman was doing something that very few, if any other women could do at the time since it was historically dominated by men - if not an all-male club. Dreadstar ☥ 04:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More special pleading. There were women physicists active in the 1960s. Mildred Dresselhaus comes to mind. Your claim is like saying that notability should be lowered for left-handed physicists as there aren't many of them working in the field. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
It was obviously harder for a woman to become a physicist than for a man in the era Rauscher was working in, when only two percent of physics PhDs in America were obtained by women. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 06:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Left-handed physicists? That's a totally ludicrous simile, Xxanthippe; it's clear where the 'special pleading' is coming from and it's not from those who know how historically difficult it has been for a woman to get into physics - even in the enlightened 1960's and beyond. Let's not minimize this woman's accomplishments. Dreadstar ☥ 07:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Disrupting thread to keep related comments together). I'm dismayed but not surprised to see the hostility toward women's history here. To recognize women who left a mark by entering a traditionally all-male field is hardly creating "lower standards" of notability for women. We don't argue that all Rosa Parks did was ride a bus, and since people ride buses all the time, and since other African Americans had made acts of defiance before, why should Rosa Parks be notable? I confess that I don't get that line of reasoning. People participating in and contributing to cultural change is one of the marks of historical notability. What's at issue here is whether this admittedly minor figure's activities can be documented in RS to a satisfactory degree. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While there are enough sources to satisfy notability without even attending to gender issues, there are sources that discuss Rauscher from the point of view of gender issues as well; e.g. [1], [2]. --JN466 11:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sad to say that the misrepresentation of sources is getting worse. These do not discuss Rauscher in the substantive way you claim. The first is nothing more than a conference summary that reports broadly on the speakers and activities. Of Rauscher, it says merely: "Next, Elizabeth Rauscher (LBL) described some of the problems that confront women seeking careers in astronomy and physics." Almost all physicists attend conferences and such a mention in a summary is quite trivial. The second one is an essay by Rauscher, not about her, entitled "On Science, Women, and Mysticism" published in an obscure and apparently now defunct periodical called Woman of Power. I don't think it can be made any more plain that, if GNG is to apply (which seems to be what is suggested), substantive sources about the subject are what is required. It is clear that many proponents have been searching hard. Perhaps there are some substantive sources yet to be found (in which case I will gladly switch my position), but so far we have none. Agricola44 (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I think I'll give you that one, and admit to a pang of embarrassment. I thought Woman of Power had been a more substantial publication; the first Google Books search page listed 4040 hits, but I see now that by the second page we're down to 15, or at least less than 20. So scratch that. I still think she is notable enough, but these two sources don't make a difference here. Regards, --JN466 01:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Everybody seems agreed that the subject fails WP:PROF. I don't thinking attacking the WP:PROF guideline helps the article; nor does the "she is notable because he is a woman" argument. The obvious road to keeping the article is based on satisfying WP:GNG, and there is quite possibly enough material (maybe even in Kaiser alone) to do that. However, someone needs to shift attention away from this AfD towards the article itself. The main claim to notability will probably be in the WP:FRINGE "new age" elements such as "remote viewing" (see e.g. Kaiser p 262), but that's no obstacle, as long as someone can dig up and document a few more references. There may be some here: [3], although most of the books there are of dubious reliability. -- 202.124.74.59 (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A sensible approach and consistent with my first comments on this page. The references you point to are of a fringe/crank nature (at least the first few pages that I have looked at). That by itself is not objectionable; I have no problem with fringe topics provided that they are labelled as such and do not masquerade as mainstream science. As happens often with fringe scientists, the person starts off working in mainstream topics and then moves into the fringe. This accounts for the paucity of citations as fringe sources are not used by most citation databases. The subject is not notable for her mainstream work so arguments about how hard it is to do a PhD are beside the point. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
@SlimVirgin. I decline to accept your directions as to what language I can and cannot use on Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
In fact it seems she has won a "Green Award," which suggests she is a major figure in the WP:FRINGE community, and hence probably notable. -- 202.124.72.57 (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment i dislike fringe as much as anyone, but go back and read the Kaiser book. (which you can under google books). there is an extended discussion of her career. are you seriously arguing that an historian of science at MIT is going to waste time on a non-notable person? or that you know better than him? is not his work an indication of notability? your arguments do not do you credit. i see DGG voted delete the first time, and reopened, wonder how he would vote now. 98.163.75.189 (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, it's fringy, but I think the nontrivial coverage of her in "How the Hippies Saved Physics" and in the Robesonian article about her eviction from the tobacco farm (a one-paragraph precis of her career) are together enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fringe is great, and we need more of it - or perhaps my vision of fringe is different than yours ;) Regardless of fringe, it's an amazing story and she's a total badass. A woman in 1975 doing what she did with quantum physics? So amazing. Keep! SarahStierch (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why not save your AfD energy for all the barely referenced and truly non-notable or poorly reference or even vanity Bios out there, like, say Pete Perry or Amikam Aharoni. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please prod those first to leave AfD free for the controversial cases. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks. One forgets about Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Rauscher is described alone and at some length by David Kaiser in his book How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture, and the Quantum Revival. On page 49, he begins by saying "Rauscher grew up in the Berkeley area." The short biography of Rauscher continues for three pages. This is not trivial coverage. Binksternet (talk) 04:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A fringe scientist whose ideas have never been addressed scientifically, all the sources are from perspectives sportive of the fringe ideas and thus a neutral article will be impossible to construct. The only source with major coverage is pseudo-scientific, otherwise it is just very brief half sentence mentions. To the closing admin, please note that significant support has been canvassed here from WikiProject Feminism and they all appear to be voting 'keep she is a woman'. LegrisKe (talk) 07:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm quite certain an admin will notice the difference between "keep she is a woman", which is a reductio ad absurdum of what's actually been said here, and the element of historical notability that accrues to women who participated in changing the culture of traditionally all-male fields. There's nothing intellectually dubious, or even particularly feminist, about recognizing that as one element of notability among others. I usually don't write on "women's topics," but a few months ago became aware through outside media that WP is perceived as hostile to women. As a result, I became part of the new Women's History project (not WikiProject Feminism) because I wanted to counter that perception and encourage women to edit, and wanted to improve coverage of topics pertaining to women that might have been neglected. I'm finding discussions such as these to be very illuminating. Once it was pointed out that Rauscher belonged to a generation when women physicists were rare, and therefore that was one element of her notability, editors who included that as an argument were disparaged as supporting her just because she was a woman, without regard to the obvious historical perspective (which would not be a factor in women physicists today). The hostility to a legitimate historical view seems disproportionate, and supports what I'd read but not personally experienced on WP. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article will almost certainly be kept now (either as "keep" or "no consensus"), so don't panic. However, I think you misunderstand the discussion above: editors are discounting what you call the "legitimate historical view" because no sources support it (true though it might be). If some author had discussed Rauscher in a history of women in science, we would all have voted "keep" and gone home. You appear to be using WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to infer what such a history would say, and that's against the rules (as I understand them). Similarly (and I think the same is true of Brian Josephson below, and several editors above) you are confusing significance (notability in the ordinary sense of the word) with WP:N (notability in the Wikipedia sense). It's quite possible that all kinds of unrecognised geniuses are lacking articles because their achievements aren't documented, and so it must necessarily be in an encyclopaedia. It's unfortunate that some editors feel "disparaged," but it's not misogyny (there are male and female editors on both sides here). Rather, it's a recognition that simply claiming "she was a female physicist at a time when few existed" is not a valid argument under WP:GNG. In fact, Rauscher's career as a physicist has so far left few footprints on history, which is why several editors have !voted "delete." However, it is also becoming clear that her role in alternate religious thought has left quite a few footprints, and that should be enough to settle the notability question on its own. -- 202.124.72.4 (talk) 04:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But David Kaiser is an historian of science, and he did write about her fairly extensively, and he did discuss the difficulties she had as a woman during that era in physics. But for some reason you want to discount him. You've even suggested that MIT is not a reliable-enough source of information about him. [4] So it's quite hard to see where you're coming from. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 07:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the gender issue, the year Rauscher obtained her PhD, 1,645 other women obtained PhDs in physical sciences; I'm not sure all of those women necessarily satisfy WP:N. As to Kaiser, I'm certainly not discounting what he says about Rauscher, although he doesn't seem to say much about her contributions to physics per se. Several editors above have questioned whether the mentions of Rauscher in Kaiser's book are enough to satisfy WP:N, although I think, on balance, that they do. Fortunately, there's other material apart from Kaiser. I don't think you do the article any favours by trying to focus the AfD debate solely on Kaiser's book, nor by arguing with me when I'm putting a "keep" case. As to Kaiser himself, he's not up for AfD (and he would pass under WP:PROF #5 if he was), although it is unfortunate (and a breach of WP:BLP) that his article hangs entirely autobiographical material (such as his personal MIT web page), rather than, say, the official MIT staff list. And, please, WP:AGF and don't misrepresent me. -- 202.124.74.69 (talk) 07:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reasonable approach. I've said more than once that "keep" is of course dependent on the existence of sufficient sources, which SlimVirgin's been working on. My objections were to the disparaging tone of "just because she's a woman." There's a big difference between that and questioning whether RS support the subject as a topic of women's history (among other elements of notability). The Women's History project in fact spent a lot of time addressing these kinds of issues in crafting criteria for inclusion within the project, and (at the risk of going off-topic) if any editors want to know some of the ways we excluded "just because she's a woman", see Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History#Scope (and particularly the criteria for biographies). This applies of course only to our project, not general notability, since the project deals only with history, not current events and contemporary culture. But some people involved in this discussion may be interested. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry you found the tone disparaging; I'm sure nobody intended it that way. Those Women's History project guidelines are excellent, and it's a pity they weren't mentioned earlier. It's not actually clear to me that Rauscher meets them, but I presume that's all been resolved by within-project discussion. -- 202.124.72.140 (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've not been following up her activities, but I believe she was one of the first to propose the use of multi-dimensional spaces to explain certain things (in a conference in the late '70s, I believe). That would seem pretty notable. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The closing admin should note that the above comment is from Brian Josephson. He seems to be modest enough not to be pulling rank here, but I think maybe his !vote might carry a little more weight mass than others, on the basis of his expertise. For what its worth (not a lot, admittedly) I agree with him: keep. Rauscher may well not meet the notability requirements for her work within orthodox science, but that isn't the basis for the !keep votes above. Ignoring the feminist arguments (not that we necessarily should), Rauscher seems to have been an active participant in a trend challenging orthodoxy within physics - a challenge that seems to have had significant results, even if most of us don't have a clue what they mean. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems clearly notable from the sources. Maybe her research isn't the most respected in physics, but that doesn't mean she can't be notable. Also, I think people are focusing too much on PROF and AUTHOR. Maybe she doesn't technically meet any single notability guideline, but the combination of her work as a physicist, an author, and a prominent female scientist seem to put her well within our scope. Kaldari (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The trend is clearly toward keep, though I think the policy justifications are extremely weak (like the above opinion that feels we should judge on an imaginary combination of various guidelines). I think the following is an accurate synopsis: there is one substantive source (6 paragraphs about Rauscher and a picture in Kaiser's recent book) and numerous other claimed ones that have been exposed as trivial upon closer examination. There now also seems to be rough consensus that she does not pass AUTH or PROF, so this case will be assessed from GNG. Generally, multiple sources are required, though it's pretty clear that the majority here will not hold this accountable. If this article is indeed kept, I hope it will be a fair presentation, i.e. not misrepresenting Rauscher as a renowned physicist, but rather as someone on the fringe. Right now, the bulk of the article casts her as a mainstream physicist and claims she is best know for founding FFG. In fact, she is much better known for her numerous new-age endeavors, e.g. her company, BioHarmonic Resonance and its holistic healing services, her remote viewing activities (mentioned, but only in passing), and her association with Nassim Haramein. In fact, her previous WP reputation has largely been established by one of the many Haramein AFDs, where I had difficulty convincing Avsav (whose intimate knowledge suggested either Haramein or Rauscher) that a paper jointly authored by the two was nonsense, for example in that it confused basic concepts like energy and torque. (Note that the current version tries to semantically wiggle around the problem, see pp 10.) While Rauscher was active in mainstream physics at one time, she departed long ago for the fringe. I've no problem with BLPs of such folks, as long as they're a truthful representation, which this one is currently not, and so long as the person is notable, of which 1 source does not convince me. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    The contention in this debate arose because the main authors of the second version of the BLP seemed to have minimal experience of writing on science topics and appeared to know little about the culture of science, in particular the distinction between fringe and mainstream science (the Demarcation problem). Mainstream scientists regard this distinction as of crucial importance and resent attempts of the latter to masquerade as the former. I don't think this was done deliberately in this case but was just due to a lack of cultural sensitivity. Some Wikipedians even seek to banish fringe science altogether from Wikipedia. I favor the inclusion of fringe topics provided that they are properly identified as such, and I have come under attack [5] myself for trying to include even properly labelled BLPs with a fringe flavor. The article needs revision to separate its mainstream/fringe aspects clearly. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    Comment I share those concerns about the POV of the article. -- 202.124.72.140 (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not a topic for AfD, but for the article talk page. Feel free to recommend sources there to cover those aspects of her work that may be considered fringe. The Rosen Publishing book is reputably published and can perhaps be used to add a couple of sentences. --JN466 01:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elizabeth_Rauscher_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1068878221"