Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadine Burke Harris

< 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 no consensus. Might also be considered a consensus to keep, actually, depending on how much weight one gives the IP opinions. In this discussion, the nominator's view that articles that may be the result of PR efforts should not be considered evidence of notability is not widely enough shared to gain consensus and to override the standards our current notability guidelines provide for.  Sandstein  19:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nadine Burke Harris

edit
Nadine Burke Harris (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)

Non notable. What she actually seems to have done is started a clinic and gotten significant publicity. I can find no papers in Google Scholar. No evidence of meeting WP:PROF. It is possible she meets the GNG because of the New Yorker article, but otherwise she is merely one of a team that produced a study.She is on committees but is chair of none of them. She has received no awards. This article needs to be started over., to be written without phrases like "Hailed as a pioneer in the treatment of toxic stress". I have removed some undocumentable claims about her from the article on Adverse Childhood Experiences Study. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I let this stand first time I saw it mostly on the strength of the 2013 and 2015 SF Chronicle and Examiner pieces. What say you about these? Too little to establish notability? — Brianhe (talk) 05:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Chronicle article is one on each of their nominees for an award, an award she did not receive. It takes herr at her own word, as principal investigation of the research project , which she was not. The Examiner is more about the project, & again bases its part about her on her. I consider both PR. The problem here is that a great deal of newspaper coverage is PR. AA PR guy who contributes legit here & whom I trust told me that the ideal way to do things is to persuade reporters to write genuine articles about the person or company, and editors to insert them. WP's notability-by-sourcing rules are helpless against such tactics, another reason why I would go by any rational measure of importance. I no longer think the popular press can be trusted as an indicator of notability (FWIW, I've for several years been having this suspicion about New Yorker profiles of various interesting people, and I have not been adding them routinely.) The only thing that ultimately shows notability by sourcing is the historical record, and that too depends on the particular interests of historians, and of course doesn't help us for current topics. We need WP:V, but anything dependent on the subject doesn't even have WP:V. DGG ( talk ) 08:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 11:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some of the ones I found:
Burke, Nadine J., et al. "The impact of adverse childhood experiences on an urban pediatric population." Child abuse & neglect 35.6 (2011): 408-413. The impact of adverse childhood experiences on an urban pediatric population

Briggance, Bram B., and Nadine Burke. "Shaping America's health care professions: the dramatic rise of multiculturalism." Western journal of medicine 176.1 (2002): 62.

Scott, Brandon G., et al. "The Interrelation of Adverse Childhood Experiences within an At-Risk Pediatric Sample." Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma 6.3 (2013): 217-229.

Trade2tradewell (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per excellent comments by DGG. User:Trade2tradewell, those are original papers by the subject, not independent third-party sources and don't seem to me to answer the notability requirement. This is in part my implicit taking of sides with DGG in the effort to rid Wikipedia of placed promotional bios, even when they have the backing of what I would have expected to be reputable publications. If I have anyhing to do with it, we shall not be content to be "helpless against such tactics". Tomwsulcer, would you do us the favor of not just throwing up a Google search, but rather point to specific entities that demonstrate notability? Brianhe (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


@Brianhe, I reference those papers because DGG wrote that he could not find anything on Google Scholar, so I pointed out that she does appear in Google Scholar as "Nadine Burke" , see link above. You stated that you are biased even though the objective evidence shows that the sourced publications like The New Yorker, San Francisco Chronicle, The San Francisco Examiner, Los Angeles Sentinel and a news piece from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health are highly reputable. Whether you or me expect them to be reputable or not, The New Yorker is reputable. see here. She has received an award, I just included it on the page a few minutes ago, The James Irvine Foundation 2014 Leadership Award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trade2tradewell (talk • contribs) 22:40, 12 August 2015
Brianhe, maybe you could do us a favor and not vote "delete" until you've done your homework, such as looking at sources like this one, source says she is winning an award here, she's quoted as an expert here, a source says she is advising Hillary Clinton here, in which it says The San Francisco pediatrician is a key figure in Hillary Rodham Clinton's first philanthropic effort, an initiative to promote scientific studies of early childhood development and research-based policies to help kids. Many more sources possible.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Trade2tradewell I did not say I was "biased"; I said I was persuaded. There's a difference, which you should understand if you'd like to participate in deletion debates. In fact my first statement when I entered this conversation was that I had decided that the subject was notable, so where in the world do you get this idea? Also please sign your comments. Tomwsulcer I guess the right response here is a succinct "all awards are not created equal", and to reiterate that I was persuaded by DGG's analysis that the Chronicle (sfgate.com) sources are now suspect. I think I'm done here. — Brianhe (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Brianhe so you think this source is inaccurate? What part of it do you think is untrue?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If true, it contradicts the basic premise of your article, and of your addition to the article on the study, because it says "i n late 2008, a colleague told Burke Harris about the Adverse Childhood Experiences Study, a long-term project led by Kaiser Permanente and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. " The articles have been repeatedly insisting that she is the leader of the survey--it seems from this she isn't even involved as one of the leaders, though she may have participated as one of the people in this multi-center study. There might possible be a basis for an article on her, but not by a COI editor. You have shown your inability to write about the subject in a NPOV manner, so there's nothing else to do but to start over. DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, I see your point, that there may be a discrepancy here, resulting in confusion about whether (1) Burke Harris was the leader of a medical movement that figured out the link between adverse childhood stressors (parental divorce, incarceration, abuse etc) and long term health risks later in life or whether (2) Burke Harris implemented study recommendations in her clinic, such as asking about stressors and, if found, getting psychotherapy for her young patients possibly to help ease the stress. Still, DGG if you're right, that simply involves us Wikipedians getting the story right, and in my view, does not affect whether Burke Harris is notable or not. I continue to think she's notable, regardless of whether she was the study pioneer or not, since her role in this area is considerable, with plenty of media attention.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The solution might possibly be to make an article on the clinic, which is the only thing that appears certain, and the only thing for which there are RSs for notability. BLPs with substantial reliance upon unverifiable claims are normally deleted. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - our job is to determine if subject is covered in depth in reliable sources. It is NOT to do an investigation whether or not said coverage is the result of "PR" by a reporter who was persuaded to write an article by the source in order to get a Wikipedia article - that's completely ludicrous and is not policy in any way. Oh and Brianhe it's nice of you to side with DGG's witch hunt "to rid Wikipedia of placed promotional bios," but as someone who was outright accused by DGG as being "clearly" a paid COI editor, I can assure you that DGG's instincts as to what is a promotionally placed bio aren't that great. I'm still waiting for an apology on that one. —МандичкаYO 😜 08:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep does not meet WP:DEL-REASON. See also WP:NOTTEXTBOOK if there are minor inaccuracies in the sources or article, the entire world is welcome to edit. 009o9 (talk) 03:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep does not meet WP:DEL-REASON.Mango 03:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangoclowns (talk • contribs) 28 August 2015‎— Mangoclowns (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Confirmed sockpuppet's !vote stricken
  • Comment 1 Certainly it is "our responsibility" to find out if the coverage by what purports to be reliable sources is based on PR, because if it is, the source is not reliable for notability in this instance--and if they make a habit out of it, not reliable for notability at all. Efforts to remove promotional articles are based on WP:NOT, and I think the present state of Wikipedia is evidence that all of us who care about our remaining an encycopedia need to greatly intensify them. I of course can be wrong in any particular instance, but I do not think I am in this one. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 2 I do apologize for missing the articles listed. For the first one, there are 56 citations in G Scholar. The second is cited 14 times, the third zero. This is way below the standards for notability in biomedicine. DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The subject of multiple examples of significant coverage in presumably reliable published sources. In short, a GNG pass, which is what we're here to determine. Content debates belong elsewhere. Carrite (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:IAR. Also, WP:GOOG provideth: Mar'11.[1] Jul'11.[2] Nov'13.[3][4] Jan'14.[5] Aug'14.[6] Nov'14.[7][8] Lastly, WP:SCHOLARSHIP means legit papers, via wiki-reliable co-authors/editors/journals, do help show WP:N, there is no WP:ONLYIFSHEHASTENTHOUSANDCITES that I'm aware of. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@75.108.94.227: Just curious, as someone who is not voting here myself, why are you invoking WP:IAR? Seems a bit odd. Quis separabit? 17:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, satisfying WP:GNG is sufficient for a bangkeep. Clearly she does. But the arguments being made here for deletion, is that she's "gotten significant publicity" but somehow still fails wiki-notability. So I'll go ahead and fall back on the gold standard: WP:IAR applies to exceptional situations, where the rules indicate one thing, but common sense indicates another. Here at this AfD, the rules clearly indicate a bangkeep, so the only argument for bangdelete is basically, ignore-all-rules-and-delete. However, that would be mis-applying WP:IAR, since the article (when de-pufferized which isn't a matter for AfD) actually improves the encyclopedia. Anyways, I don't think invoking IAR ought be necessary, for either bangkeep or bangdelete, but I also think WP:GNG is passed with flying colors... since GNG has been brought up multiple times before, I figured I'd just cut to the chase. Shrug. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 05:23, 3 September 2015 (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/Nadine_Burke_Harris&oldid=1083981116"