Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estelle Lazer

Estelle Lazer

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

Nothing to indicate that the subject passes WP:PROF. There has been some press coverage of her work on Pompeii, but not enough to meet the WP:GNG. – Joe (talk) 11:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 12:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 12:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass the notability requirements for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Early career academics are not usually notable, as here. TV presence not yet enough for WP:GNG WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I turned up numerous mentions in decent sources. here are a couple of pages in a book. Another book mention. Another book mention here. Mention in New Scientist. A book mention on her Antarctic work. She is quoted at length in the New York Times here. The evening Standard mentions her here. Republicca.it (Italian) mentions her Pompei work here. El Pais has something substantial here. Here is a Cambridge University-published book that devotes a few pages to her Pompei scanner work. She may not meet the pure research standard for notability, but with refs like these I believe she has met the GNG.104.163.152.194 (talk) 06:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think this should be judged on PROF. Her coverage in multiple third party sources obviously underlines her notability.--Ipigott (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As has been repeatedly pointed out the POV that she must meet PROF is misdirected. GNG requires only sufficient RS over time. There are plenty. [1], [2], [3], [4] SusunW (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @SusunW: I appreciate the sentiment but in this case that POV is a strawman. I mentioned the GNG in the nomination, as did Xxanthippe, we simply disagree that Lazer meets it. If we're going to start counting passing citations to people's work as "significant coverage" we'll have to throw out WP:PROF altogether and include pretty much everyone who's ever published a scholarly paper. – Joe (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I will disagree with you that there is insufficient coverage. "Estelle Lazer undertook the first modern systematic study of the human skeletal remains of the victims from Pompeii" [5] is enough to establish that she is notable, if more sources can be found, and they can. (By the by, the book sources clearly show her excavational work is NOT connected to her university work, as she works as a freelancer) In addition to the books, [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] SusunW (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost all of the above claims for GNG are actually based on citations/mentions of Lazer's work, the fodder of PROF, not on pieces with biographical discussion on Lazer herself...and these citations are far below our conventional bar. I think this person will be notable, but not yet. Agricola44 (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Comment So someone could be notable in the GNG, but once WP:PROF is applied they're not? That seems to contradict the basic principle of the GNG, WP:ANYBIO and Wikipedia policy. I'm not sure I understand WP:PROF. For my field, at least, it's a silly criteria. 104.163.152.194 (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough there for a start, and enough hints in the text that notability will easily be established. This is an academic working in popular field, the offline published sources appear first. The recommendation in El Pais 'a antropóloga australiana Estelle Lazer, um das maiores autoridades mundiais na análise forense da antiguidade.' alone is enough at this stage. To have your books translated into another language as stated in 'El Pais' also suggest notability. ClemRutter (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per SusunW, anyone who was the first to undertake that kind of investigation makes her notable. However, there are also enough sources provided above to show she passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep . on the basis that the book is in over 300 worldcat libraries. But in judging notability of academics, we do not count citations from other academic articles as significant for the purpose of the GNG. If we did, every person who published 2 or more papers that were cited 2 or more times would meet the GNG, which would include essentially every postdoctoral fellow in the world (and every assistant professor in the sciences). One of the reasons we have WP:PROF is to avoid this interpretation--I in fact did make this interpretation for people whom I thought important in the days before WP:PROF was firmly established. The argument succeeding nicely in getting everyone to use WP:PROF instead. DGG ( talk ) 22:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]