Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhonda Nanette McEwen

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.

Rhonda Nanette McEwen

The result was Delete. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Rhonda Nanette McEwen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Via: subject is non-notable under Wikipedia:Notability_(academics), she got her PhD in 2009 and Google Scholar has her as being almost entirely uncited [1]. Page was created as part of a school project that page subject was running - Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Could_do_with_a_bit_of_careful_handling_this_one..., the school project has now been completed and I'm proposing this article for removal... Fayedizard (talk) 06:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Delete well-meant but misguided attempt by a group of students to honor/please their teacher. Note that the project referred to in the nom was headed by the subject of this article... I also request the closing admin (regardless of the outcome of this AfD) for a courtesy blanking and to add a "noindex" template, so that this debate will not pop up in online searches, while still preserving our records of the debate. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. BTW the "Noticeboard" link provided does not go anywhere relevant, please verify the exact url of the intended page and correct the link. Roger (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. She has been interviewed in Canadian media as an expert on communication technology
  • Social status and online networking. Anonymous. The Spectator [Hamilton, Ont] 19 Oct 2009: A.13.
  • That BlackBerry's making you work longer; The addictive device has changed the meaning of our 'office hours'. LaSalle, LuAnn. Toronto Star [Toronto, Ont] 21 Oct 2009: E.10.
  • Talking on cellphones could be passe by 2020; Telecom: Over the next decade, the use of apps will continue to grow. LaSalle, LuAnn. Telegraph-Journal [Saint John, N.B] 18 Jan 2010: B.1.
  • Apps to help the disabled. Nicole Baute. Toronto Star [Toronto, Ont] 15 Jan 2010: L.3.
  • Trouble speaking? There's an app for that. Oliveira, Michael . Prince George Citizen [Prince George, B.C] 08 Apr 2011: 27.
  • Teachers buzz over Apple education announcement Globe and Mail
  • 'Bicycle of the 21st century' for wired generation of kids; Survey shows a third of North American moms age 18 to 27 have let their children use a laptop computer by age 2. Harris, Misty. The Gazette [Montreal, Que] 27 Sep 2011: A.2.

and concerning her work on the use of mobile technology among students identified on the autism spectrum in the following publications:

• SF Weekly

• • Technology opens up new worlds for children with Autism Globe and Mail
  • Little screen, big hopes. Dakshana Bascaramurty. The Globe and Mail [Toronto, Ont] 12 Apr 2010: L.1.
  • Is the iPad the next big toy for toddlers? Technology: Children have a natural knack for Apple's touch-screen tablet. Baute, Nicole. Toronto Star [Toronto, Ont] 19 June 2010: L.1.
  • How touch gives autism a voice. Seale, Andrew. National Post [Don Mills, Ont] 22 Mar 2011: MP.7.
  • Autistic children tap into iPad to communicate. Hewitt, Pat. Trail Times [Trail, B.C] 19 May 2011: 13.
  • The iPad is being used by teachers to help students with autism communicate. The National - CBC TelevisionToronto: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. (Oct 25, 2011)
  • [2] Spark (radio show)
  • [3] 60 Minutes

I can integrate these refs into the article but I would reduce the article to only a paragraph or two (There is a general profile here Toronto Star). maclean (talk) 03:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

To clarify - are you suggesting that she meets one of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) (and if so, which one?) or are you suggesting she meets a different notability standard outside academia? (The profile you cite mentions her as a second year PhD student...) Fayedizard (talk) 11:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking more about the general Wikipedia:Notability guideline. Above I have definitively proved there exists "reliable independent sources". All that is left is to consider is whether the coverage of her in the sources is "sufficiently significant". I am arguing that, yes, there is reasonable enough coverage to start an article and the multiple interviews as an expert illustrate a reasonable enough interest in her to warrant an article in Wikipedia. maclean (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a sensible track to take - Looking over the sources - I can't find any of the sources that you didn't provide a link for - so I can't comment on them (I'm pressuming you get hard copies as a resident - but my google-fu might be letting me down) - the thing I'm interested to know is: is there a difference in notability between sources *about* an individual and sources that *involve* an individual - looking at the online sources, we have a total of 327 words that involve Rhonda, which includes vague quotes like "“Persistence is important. You’ve got to keep at it,” Dr. McEwen says." and "She's hoping that Apple might announce some deals with universities or other educational groups to partner in researching some truly innovative approaches to digital learning." (The 60 minutes cite is fairly impressive though, but I'm not convinced that 'appearing on 60 minutes once' demonstrates an need for an article…

The unlinked refs above are from the Canadian Newsstand database (accessed through a library account). Based on the reference I've read I can endorse this as an article: sandbox (plus basic info from her profile at U of T). maclean (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:Prof is certainly not achieved and there doesn't seem to be enough material for WP:GNG. Also clear WP:COI. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC).
• Delete. We again have confusion on WP:RS, which requires substantive info on or about the subject, not brief quotes in a story that is actually about something else. The above all seem to be of the latter type, e.g. "With the iPod, for the first time, he was able to demonstrate that he did understand," McEwen says. In essence, there was a fleeting media buzz on using the iPad in education and McEwen was quoted/appeared in a number of stories. None of them were about her, so there is clearly no basis for WP:GNG. She is a professor, though, and here she might satisfy the distinctly different requirements. However, in checking, you find this is not the case. For example, her research on the socio-educational aspects of technology only has 6 total GS citations (h-index 1). She is a newly-minted PhD and clearly does not satisfy any of the other parts of WP:PROF either. Most of the sources seem to be her own CV or personal web page. The page history indicates that this page was started as a freshman class project by user whose only single edit in the entirety of the article namespace was to create this page. Agricola44 (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC).

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.