Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beth Adelson

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. The delete arguments, in particular David Eppstein's careful analysis, are more convincing. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Adelson (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)

This professor doesn't seem to pass WP:PROF, and I can't see evidence that she passes the WP:GNG. She's mentioned in passing in very many sources, but I can't find in-depth coverage anywhere. Slashme (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

• Delete as per nom, no in depth RS coverage. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Article meets Wikipedia policies

I hope that this posting can address the comments of editors Slashme and Deathlibrarian 1. With respect to the issue of passing the WP:PROF

a. Professor Adelson’s page documents that she has done academic work whose representation in Wikipedia serves the online community well. Further the page’s reference articles are by leading scientists in key refereed journals. As to the impact and importance of the work, as a faculty member at Yale she was invited to the National Science Foundation to serve as a Program Director and create a cognitive science program (reference 8 in the page under question). She served repeated elected terms on the Executive Board of her professional association SIG:CHI and during that time twice co-chaired their international conferences and edited the conference proceedings(see vita link below). Her work on the results of meditation practice is endorsed by the Dalai Lama (reference 10). Her work on categorization explained how we understand abstract concepts. Previous work had only looked at our understanding of the physical world (reference 5). Her work on analogical problem solving (reference 3), memory organization (reference 4), problem deconstruction in conflict resolution (reference 6), and discovery and insight processes (reference 7) have, along with her other several dozen papers received over 2,000 citations in refereed articles building on the work. Dr. Adelson has authored dozens of refereed publications; received over a million dollars in refereed competitive research funding and been asked to speak at institutions such as UC Berkeley and TJ Watson research center. (The above is documented at: http://crab.rutgers.edu/~adelson/vita.pdf

b. Her work on meditation also has significant intellectual and societal impact: She is rendering original Buddhist texts into language useful in society today. This has allowed her to develop meditation practices which have helped hundreds of people with concerns like chronic pain, interpersonal relations, and eating disorders (this teaching is made accessible through the websites of the Philadelphia Meditation Center ( http://www.philadelphiameditation.org/ ), the 24th St. Sangha ( http://crab.rutgers.edu/~adelson/The%2024th%20Street%20Sangha%20.pdf) and the main and neighborhood branches of the Philadelphia Public Libraries; Philadelphia has a population of 1,600,000). (This work is documented at http://crab.rutgers.edu/~adelson/ and http://crab.rutgers.edu/~adelson/The%2024th%20Street%20Sangha%20.pdf )

c. The two paragraphs above address meeting criteria 1, 4, and 6 of WP:PROF.

d. Editor “Slashme's” comment: “She's mentioned in passing in very many sources, but I can't find in-depth coverage” does not address a Wikipedia criterion. “Deathlibrarian’s similar comment “no in depth RS coverage” seems to refer to the same issue; again, this is not a Wikipedia criterion.

2. As to editor “Slashme’s” comment, “I can't see evidence that she passes the WP:GNG”, it does not seem to apply; that appears to be the set of criteria for topics, not for individuals; this is the page of an individual. (However, if the notability of the topics on which Dr. Adelson has worked needs to be addressed, that is documented in the page’s 2nd reference by Nobel Laureate Herb Simon, and in the 4th reference by CMU’s J.K. Mellon University Professor John Anderson).

3. It may serve the online community well to have an accessible record of Dr. Adelson’s work and to be able to contact her in order to build on it. Mjholloway1 (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC) — Mjholloway1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

* Keep In response to editors Slashme and Deathlibrarian's assertions I see the following documentation:

Criteria 1, 4 & 6 of WP:PROF are met. (See the documented publications and appointments on the page; paragraphs 1 and 2). As to RS, the references are by the most respected scholars in that field publishing in the most respected peer reviewed journal's (e.g. see Ullman, Newell, Ericsson, Fodor and Anderson; reference #s 5,2,3,8,4 respectively). The criteria for WP:GNG, topics of notability, do not apply. This is a person's not a topic's page. However, Adelson's topics are notable (again see e.g. Erickson, Fodor, Ullman, Newell, the Dalai Lama & Anderson; reference #s 3,8,5,2,10,4 respectively). The criticism that the references, while quite numerous, do not give lengthy descriptions of Adelson's research is: a: not a Wikipedia criterion and b: not the convention of writing in this field. However, the numerous references reflect that Adelson's work was the impetus for many, including these, subsequent significant works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnie A. Silver (talk • contribs) 15:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC) — Arnie A. Silver (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• KeepI find that this page more than meets the criteria for the notability of a professor. Google Scholar shows that more than 2,200 other scientists have used Dr. Adelson’s work as a scaffold to build further understanding. Additionally, paragraphs 1 and 2 and the reference section of the Adelson Wikipedia page; and her vita all show long and consistent service to her field through notable appointments. Given this, is there an underlying motivation to the delete request? Rachel Allen (talk) 15:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC) — Rachel Allen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:V, WP:PROMO and WP:TNT. I believe she does pass WP:PROF#C1 but the article is so promotionally written and badly sourced that it would be better to delete it and start from scratch than to keep any remnant of it in its current state.

I checked the first five references in the current version of the article. Reference [1], Curtis, Krasner, and Iscoe, mentions her work only trivially as one of six works cited to support the sentence "Nevertheless, few software development models include process components identified in empirical research on design problem-solving". Reference [2], Newell and Simon's "Human Problem Solving" [1], appears not to mention her (the only hits I found for her name were for someone else with a similar name). Reference [3], Ericsson and Lehmann, again cites her work, in paragraphs on pp. 285, 293, 294, and 295, but in a similarly trivial way that fails to support any claims in the article. Reference [4] cites her work as one of six references for the statement that "the structure of cognition changes from domain to domain and behavior changes as experience increases ... this shows up in comparisons between novices and experts" and fails to support our article's claim that she studied "memory organization". Reference [5], Ullman et al [2], cites her work multiple times, none of which support our article's claims that her work studies "categorization processes in the domain of computer science".

I.e. none of these scholarly references actually says anything nontrivial that supports our article. They are all merely passing and routine citations of her work as one would expect to find for all academics at all levels of significance. And the fact that what they say is so far removed from what our article claims they say indicates to me that active deception may be going on, not mere incompetence in citation. I didn't check all the rest of the references, but even the non-scholarly references are suspect. For instance, reference [10] is used for a very specific claim, "Her research on how intensive meditation effects perception and action in interpersonal and professional conflict is endorsed by the Dalai Lama", but in fact the reference itself (an image on Abelson's own web site that purports to be a scan of a letter from the Dalai Lama) speaks only in vague terms about the Shamatha Project.

Given these severe sourcing problems, and the apparent promotional intent visible in efforts such as putting such a scan online (and the apparent recruitment of new editors to participate in this AfD), I think we must delete. However, if an experienced editor works to save the article by removing the bad sources and trimming it down to something verifiable, I might be willing to change my opinion.—David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree, she doesn't seem to pass WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Only seems to be mentioned in passing if at all. It also appears to be more of a WP:PROMOTION violation for a meditation teacher trying to use prior academic work to justify an wikipeida bio to include the mediation stuff. - GretLomborg (talk) 04:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unfortunately for the author, I find that there is not much worth salvaging from this because of WP:PROMOTION. Sifting whether she meets WP:PROF or not ends up being a judgment call. I chose to judge no. I thank David Eppstein for his analysis above. --Bejnar (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2017 (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.