Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joanne Roberts

Add links
Source: 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. This individual appears to be right on the knife edge of notability. Despite concerted efforts to stretch the definitions of

WP:NACADEMIC to declare this individual notable, I find rough consensus here that she does not quite pass those requirements just yet. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 18:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Joanne Roberts

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Joanne Roberts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear to meet

WP:ACADEMIC, does not hold a named chair nor edit a major academic journal. A loose necktie (talk) 10:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Canada. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment/question. She is the president of
    WP:NACADEMIC criterion 6 is met if The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.. How do we establish if Yale-NUS College is a "major academic institution"? It has 140 staff teaching about 1,000 students, a 11 year history - to me that seems maybe major? It has a page with no tags, so we appear to consider it notable. Is notable synonymous with major? CT55555 (talk) 12:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Comment The answer to "Is notable synonymous with major?" should be "no". -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject was co-editor of a major journal (meaning one of the four chief editors in this case https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15405982) => Criterium 8 is met
President of Yale-NUS College - which is a major although recent institution => Criterium 6 is met.
Only one criterium is necessary for notability. JamesKH76 (talk) 12:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She was one of four co-editors under a managing editor (David Green)[1]. That is not equivalent to "chief editor", that's just being on an editorial board. Yale-NUS also isn't an independent university, as degrees are conferred by NUS; it seems to function more as an "
honors college" within NUS. JoelleJay (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
A managing editor plays no academic role, they process the flux of manuscripts and usually work for the publisher. I can confirm that a co-editor in this situation is indeed a co-chief editor. Check the link above where the top editors are named co-editor. The editorial board is another body.
Yale-NUS is a joint venture between two major universities. Seems notable to me. JamesKH76 (talk) 08:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. From the link above: The top two tiers, composed by the managing editor(s) and associate editors or coeditors, are in charge of the referee process and the editorial decision-making. The managing editor is the top tier here. And Yale-NUS operates as an honors college within NUS; presidents of honors colleges (or any other sub-university colleges like "college of engineering") are not notable through C6. JoelleJay (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Being a

WP:NACADEMIC https://www.canada.ca/en/news/archive/2009/03/government-canada-provides-support-canada-research-chairs-eight-universities-western-canada.html confirms she was one. CT55555 (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

*Keep due to being a Canada Research Chair. Being president of Yale-NUS College and a journal co-editor are not sufficient to me, as per JoelleJay's comments. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Changing to delete as didn't realise it was more like a grant. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the subject meets our guidelines for inclusion. Was a full professor at the University of Calgary, president of a college, co-editor of the Canadian Journal of Economics, and an author. Lightburst (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per the notes section of
    WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    My answer to a question asking if she is clearly more notable than the average professor, is a clear yes.
    Am I misunderstanding something, because the research chair is at a specific university (the Calgary University). I don't think that being government funded detracts from it in any way. With 2,285 research chairs created since 2000, is Canada an outlier in some way? CT55555 (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Roberts received a 5-year grant while she was junior-level faculty; per the Canadian government website, this is a Tier 2 Chair, which are "tenable for five years and renewable once, [and] are for exceptional emerging researchers, acknowledged by their peers as having the potential to lead in their field." The website also states, "Nominees for Tier 2 Chair positions must be emerging scholars."
    WP:NACADEMIC #5 states, Criterion 5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level, and not for junior faculty members, so this grant does not appear to support this criterion, in addition to not being a named chair or distinguished professor position established by the university for tenured full professors. Beccaynr (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Sorry to keep asking questions, but I'm trying to reach consensus rather than just say keep and walk away. When it says it cannot be "applied reliably" do you consider that to mean it can never be applied, or does it indicate to you that we need to consider surrounding factors. Because to me it suggests the later and I'm seeing a lot of other things above that alone don't get her past the bar, but combined seem to add up to something. Combined with the definition including the word "exceptional" seems like a keep vote still seems reasonable here. But I say that as a question, inviting critique. CT55555 (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It cannot be applied reliably and therefore cannot be used to establish notability through C5. There are many many grants and academic awards that describe themselves as being reserved for "exceptional" candidates; the reason we restrict our criteria to senior faculty and have very strict guidance on what factors can even partially contribute to NPROF is because there is so much promotionalism within academia. Regardless of all that, though, research grants do not ever count towards C5 so the point is moot. JoelleJay (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I consider the word only to be a key part of interpreting the criterion that says can be applied reliably only, and the additional detail not for junior faculty members a helpful clarification about surrounding factors. The definition of this grant also twice includes the word "emerging", which seems to emphasize the junior-level nature of the Tier 2 grant. Beccaynr (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly what Beccaynr said. Government grants do not confer notability, especially not ones reserved for early-career researchers. JoelleJay (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for critique I was convinced about the research chair, but respect the counter arguments. My preference to include makes me want to say that all these almost/half meets of various subject matter notability requirements should add up to a whole, but I think I must vote delete due to the lack of significant independent coverage. This is some sort of a heart-keep, head-delete scenario. So no updated !vote for now, waiting to see what others say first. CT55555 (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • She is the President of Yale-NUS College. 6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. And 6b reads Criterion 6 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has held the post of president or chancellor (or vice-chancellor in countries where this is the top academic post) of a significant accredited college or university, director of a highly regarded, notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university), president of a notable national or international scholarly society, etc. Does this college count a "major" academic institution? Dream Focus 17:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dream Focus, because the college does not award degrees itself (rather they are awarded through NUS), and because it operates as an honors college of NUS, it cannot be considered an independent institution, much the same way that engineering colleges within universities are not separate entities for C6. JoelleJay (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    NUS already has an Honors College (University Scholars Program), but Yale-NUS represents a distinct entity as the first liberal arts college in Singapore. It does award an NUS degree, but its curriculum and structure is sufficiently different than even the University Scholars Program at NUS. Crcolas (talk) 05:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an honors college that will be merged into the other honors college in 2025. It's literally listed alongside the colleges of law and music as one of the 16 NUS colleges. Not independent. JoelleJay (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yale-NUS is not an Honors College. That argument is factually wrong. It is a liberal arts college. It has its own budget, governing board, president (not Dean - as for an Honors College), VPs, etc. It has three academic divisions, 14 majors, minors, etc. Its own admissions process. Yes, it is listed along side colleges at NUS, but you will note the website is not an NUS URL. Furthermore, it is tied to Yale in many ways that make it quite distinct from NUS (many seconded faculty from Yale over the years, the Dean of Faculty have mostly been senior faculty from Yale, etc)
    You can debate if it is a major academic institution but it is a academic institution of considerable noteworthiness in both North America and SE Asia - note articles in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Inside Higher Ed, etc. when it was founded and when it was announced that it would close. 76.28.109.15 (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, it's liberal arts college that offers exclusively honors degrees through NUS (though not through Yale). But per its charter it is still an "autonomous college of NUS", not a separate, independent university (although it is independent of Yale).
    From this article in Yale's "Accent Magazine": As expressed in the Yale-NUS charter, Yale-NUS is not an independent institution, but rather a school that exists as an autonomous institution within NUS. As reflected by our student cards, our future degrees, and whom we pay tuition to, Yale-NUS lies within NUS. JoelleJay (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per the reasoning of Beccaynr (like CT55555, this is a "heart keep, head delete" situation for me). MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. There are a lot of claims of notability that don't quite make it. A tier 1 Canada Research Chair would be enough for me for
    WP:PROF#C8. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Weak keep. I've been chewing this over. She almost meets a few different notability requirements, and I think more than two halves make a whole. I think it's fair to say that in the context of
WP:5P5 and us taking cues from guidance, that a bit of human analysis is ok here and this emotional biological lump of carbon and water thinks that the encyclopedia is better to have her in it. CT55555 (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep. She's co-editor of a major journal, president of a university (sure a small satellite one but still), was president of the Canadian Women's Economics Network, had a Canada Research Chair (which your average academic does not get) and has thousands of citations to her publications on Google Scholar despite having been in admin positions for several years. This is definitely not an average academic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lijil (talk • contribs) 04:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am really confused. I see that CT55555 struck out his vote. But it appears that he/she may have inadvertently struck the vote by User:Dream Focus. Just saying ... 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. DF did their own strike out before. CT55555 (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the nominator is incorrect. Only ONE of the
    WP:NACADEMIC
    criteria has to apply.
Caption text
Criteria from
WP:NACADEMIC
 Status
The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.  Not done
The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.  Done
The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).  Done
The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. Maybe
The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.  Done
The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society  Not done
The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. undetermined
The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area  Done

There's a difference between being a stub and being outright not notable. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lil-unique1, what prestigious award has she won? What highly selective society has she been elected to? What evidence do you have she "might" have had a substantial impact on a number of academic institutions? What is her "named chair" (noting that the "Canada Research Chair Tier II" grant is unambiguously excluded from NPROF as it is neither an academic chair appointment, nor a senior-career professional award). What journal has she been chief editor of (noting that the journal she was one of four co-editors for explicitly outlines its editing hierarchy and her position is definitely not that of a chief editor)? JoelleJay (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I said maybe indicating that I wasn't sure based on what's in the article. Is the Polanyi award not considered notable? She was chair of the Canada Research Society which satisfies the condition at NCACADEMIC, granted she wasn't chief editor of a journal in their subject area she was an editor. Holding a recognised academic position and having all of the above on balance makes her notable per NACADEMIC. Bios only have to meet one set of notability criteria. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 08:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per this discussion and the information in the article, it appears that none of the
WP:NACADEMIC criteria apply. For example, the Polanyi award is for young scholars, so it is not the type of major academic award described in C#2 because emerging scholar awards do not confer a high level of academic prestige. The Tier 2 Canada Research Chair has been discussed as the type of grant that if awarded as a Tier 1, could be sufficient, but per the C#5, Tier 2 is not. C#8 only applies for the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area, and as noted above, she was not. In addition, a 2-year term as president of the Canadian Women Economists Network does not appear sufficient per C#3, because elected memberships in minor and non-notable societies are insufficient. Beccaynr (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2022 (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/Joanne_Roberts&oldid=1101184354"