405:
That is when she wrote those academic papers. Only the very smartest, most respected retiring
Federal employees get invited to accept a fellowship. Some of those highly respected individuals who accept fellowships don't go on to write academic papers. They share what they learned, in government service, verbally, in seminars, or informal discussions. Those, like Hodgkinson, who do write papers, are more valuable that those who don't. Do these fellowships come with a stipend? Are they like a Post-doctoral fellowship? Can fellows who show they function like professors, by leading seminars, giving lectures, jump to being full-fledged academics? Good question. I dunno. Some fellowships may be part-time, with no stipend. Other may offer a stipend no higher than that offered to a grad student serving as a teaching assistant. And still others may pay comparably to actual professors. I suggest that, since only a tiny fraction of retiring Federal employees get one, even the largely honorary fellowship is highly prestigious, and confers considerable notability.
519:
before
Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice called the new SECDEF, Robert Gates, to recommend Hodgkinson for the job. She was also endorsed by Waxman and John Bellinger at the Special War Crimes Issues Office at the Department of State, the office tasked with the transfer and release of detainees from GTMO. Even after these endorsements, the DOD was still not going to hire her. When Stimson heard people were upset over the vacancy his resignation created, he also recommended Hodgkinson get the job; she was finally hired in July 2007.
570:
596:. Now it would be nice if she'd burnished her resume for us by posting topless selfies to Instagram, or made a public drunken spectacle of herself while DC barhopping with Don Rumsfeld and Condi Rice, or even winning on amateur night at the Silver Slipper, but I guess a few decades of high-level consequential government service will have to be enough.
493:. We all have to be prepared to consider that that we might be wrong and that they other guy has made valid points. We should welcome when the other guy makes a valid point, because we didn't come here to win arguments. We should be coming here to build the best encyclopedia possible, not to fight every argument to the bitter end.
401:
measuring up to a special purpose guideline, like ACADEMIC, the nominator, ie you, and everyone else weighing in, has an obligation to independently evaluate all the known and knowable notability criteria, and then doing a kind of notability calculation, where they add up all those notability factors.
400:
Only a small fraction of BLP measure up to SOLDIER, ACADEMIC, etc. Your mistake is to then act like the scholarly references that support
Hodgkinson measuring up to GNG should be totally discounted. For the 95 or 97 or 99 percent of BLP whose notability is established by measuring up to GNG, not by
404:
The US Federal government is very large - employing millions. Does it employ tens of millions? How many people retire every year? 200,000? 300,000? When
Hodgkinson retired she didn't immediately go to work as a lawyer, or for a large corporation. She accepted a fellowship, for a year or two.
518:
Sandy
Hodgkinson, a lawyer who worked detention issues at the National Security Council, had been trying to get the job since its creation. She applied after Waxman left, but Under Secretary of Defence Henry did not want to work with her. After Stimson left, the slot was open for several months
542:
Some deletionists try to insist that every BLP include the mundane milestones of individuals lives - like date of birth, hometown, dates of marriages, births of children, degrees earned. Okay, when documentable, some of this material should be included. But it is not what makes an individual
389:
WRT Academic - we have GNG - the general notability guideline, supplemented by a handful of special purpose notability guidelines. Those special purpose notability guidelines, like ACADEMIC, supercede GNG, in the narrow conditions where they are fully applicable.
394:
says anyone who reaches flag rank, or who is awarded their countries highest medal merits a standalone article, without regard to whether they did or didn't measure up to GNG. I suggest you make a huge mistake in how you are trying to apply ACADEMIC here.
435:
or at least describing her impact. If her work was as important as you claim, someone should have written about it, rather than just mentioning her name as a result of her employment. Thousands of mentions aren't equivalent to in-depth coverage.
374:
is unlikely. All I'm seeing on Google Books is brief mentions. Please specify which sources you think push her over the notability threshold and support your claim of "significant controverial opinions -- as substantiated by RS."
207:
482:
325:
Since I last worked on this article she racked up a significant publication record. Did your BEFORE extend to taking a good look at the google scholar search and google book search results?
318:
I think you missed checking the revision history of this article, and consequently missed it was subject to POV-pushing informationectomies, followed by what looks like lapses from
160:
201:
633:
547:
said it best, a decade ago. Individuals are notable for what they did and what they wrote (paraphrasing from memory), not for their marriages, children, hometowns.
333:
Hodgkinson was not merely another civil servant. She was a senior figure who went on record with significant controversial opinions -- as substantiated by RS.
286:
107:
266:
243:
92:
167:
133:
128:
137:
598:
The Big Bad
Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong!
367:
239:
120:
431:
So which notability criterion is met? Publishing scholarly articles is not enough to meet GNG - we need there to be multiple sources
60:
508:
478:
222:
601:
87:
80:
17:
189:
613:
but only if expanded. She is probably notable for what she has done, but the article at present just lists her positions.
397:
No one is claiming that
Hodgkinson measures up to ACADEMIC, and that her measuring up to ACADEMIC should supercede GNG.
453:
your comment, above, seems to totally ignore the points I made about what I see as your misinterpretation of ACADEMIC.
294:
509:
The two and a half pages of coverage of
Hodgkinson's role in crafting Detainee treatment begins with this paragraph...
101:
97:
597:
183:
663:
40:
366:
obviously isn't much use. I hadn't though to check google scholar, but her most cited publication appears to be
645:
624:
605:
582:
559:
462:
445:
414:
384:
342:
298:
278:
258:
62:
179:
489:. For the wikipedia to function smoothly everyone should take a leaf from Gerald Weinberg's advice for the
290:
364:
Hodgkinson is notable because she replaced
Charles "Cully" Stimson following his controversial resignation
124:
229:
659:
36:
641:
58:
215:
578:
555:
550:
Articles don't have to be perfect, to avoid deletion - they merely should be on notable topics.
458:
410:
371:
338:
195:
441:
391:
380:
274:
254:
116:
76:
68:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
658:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
310:
637:
53:
571:
this link is to the chapter of a book on prosecuting pirates, written by Ms
Hodgkinson
620:
574:
551:
454:
426:
406:
353:
334:
319:
246:
566:
485:
with a background in human rights law. I dispute your characterization of it as a
450:
437:
376:
306:
270:
250:
154:
362:
but the sources don't seem sufficient in that either. It was a long time ago -
573:. It includes a biography of several hundred words. I urge you to read it.
241:
615:
544:
481:, for instance, devotes two and a half pages to Hodgkinson, the first
654:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
543:
notable, and its absence does not erode their notability.
483:
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs
245:
I'm unable to find any coverage which demonstrates that
359:
150:
146:
142:
214:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
666:). No further edits should be made to this page.
632:Note: This discussion has been included in the
285:Note: This discussion has been included in the
265:Note: This discussion has been included in the
634:list of Military-related deletion discussions
228:
8:
108:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
238:Apart from some very brief mentions in RS:
631:
287:list of Women-related deletion discussions
284:
264:
539:This is just one example, from one paper.
506:
267:list of Law-related deletion discussions
363:
7:
358:- I had seen the early revisions,
24:
93:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
646:11:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
625:01:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
606:01:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
583:01:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
560:23:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
463:22:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
446:22:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
415:22:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
385:08:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
370:with 26 citations, so meeting
343:04:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
63:20:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
1:
299:17:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
279:16:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
259:16:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
83:(AfD)? Read these primers!
683:
491:"egoless programming team"
656:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
473:WRT your dismissal of
81:Articles for deletion
511:
507:
475:"passing mentions"
309:, compliance with
291:AleatoryPonderings
648:
526:
525:
487:"passing mention"
301:
281:
117:Sandra Hodgkinson
98:Guide to deletion
88:How to contribute
69:Sandra Hodgkinson
674:
512:
430:
357:
233:
232:
218:
170:
158:
140:
78:
34:
682:
681:
677:
676:
675:
673:
672:
671:
670:
664:deletion review
424:
351:
175:
166:
131:
115:
112:
75:
72:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
680:
678:
669:
668:
650:
649:
628:
627:
608:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
563:
562:
548:
540:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
524:
523:
522:
521:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
419:
418:
346:
345:
327:
326:
323:
315:
314:
313:can be tricky.
303:
302:
282:
236:
235:
172:
111:
110:
105:
95:
90:
73:
71:
66:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
679:
667:
665:
661:
657:
652:
651:
647:
643:
639:
635:
630:
629:
626:
622:
618:
617:
612:
609:
607:
603:
599:
595:
592:
591:
584:
580:
576:
572:
568:
565:
564:
561:
557:
553:
549:
546:
541:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
520:
516:
515:
514:
513:
510:
505:
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
492:
488:
484:
480:
476:
472:
471:
464:
460:
456:
452:
449:
448:
447:
443:
439:
434:
428:
423:
422:
421:
420:
417:
416:
412:
408:
402:
398:
393:
388:
387:
386:
382:
378:
373:
369:
365:
361:
355:
350:
349:
348:
347:
344:
340:
336:
332:
329:
328:
324:
321:
317:
316:
312:
308:
305:
304:
300:
296:
292:
288:
283:
280:
276:
272:
268:
263:
262:
261:
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
242:
240:
231:
227:
224:
221:
217:
213:
209:
206:
203:
200:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
181:
178:
177:Find sources:
173:
169:
165:
162:
156:
152:
148:
144:
139:
135:
130:
126:
122:
118:
114:
113:
109:
106:
103:
99:
96:
94:
91:
89:
86:
85:
84:
82:
77:
70:
67:
65:
64:
61:
59:
57:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
655:
653:
614:
610:
593:
517:
490:
486:
474:
432:
403:
399:
396:
330:
237:
225:
219:
211:
204:
198:
192:
186:
176:
163:
74:
54:
49:
47:
31:
28:
479:this thesis
372:WP:ACADEMIC
202:free images
638:Necrothesp
392:WP:SOLDIER
55:Ritchie333
660:talk page
611:Weak keep
433:about her
311:WP:BEFORE
37:talk page
662:or in a
575:Geo Swan
552:Geo Swan
455:Geo Swan
427:Geo Swan
407:Geo Swan
354:Geo Swan
335:Geo Swan
249:is met.
161:View log
102:glossary
39:or in a
567:Smartse
451:Smartse
438:SmartSE
377:SmartSE
307:Smartse
271:SmartSE
251:SmartSE
208:WP refs
196:scholar
134:protect
129:history
79:New to
320:WP:COI
247:WP:BIO
180:Google
138:delete
621:talk
223:JSTOR
184:books
168:Stats
155:views
147:watch
143:links
16:<
642:talk
602:talk
594:Keep
579:talk
556:talk
459:talk
442:talk
411:talk
381:talk
368:this
360:e.g.
339:talk
331:Keep
295:talk
275:talk
255:talk
216:FENS
190:news
151:logs
125:talk
121:edit
50:keep
616:DGG
545:DGG
230:TWL
159:– (
644:)
636:.
623:)
604:)
581:)
569:,
558:)
477:-
461:)
444:)
413:)
383:)
341:)
297:)
289:.
277:)
269:.
257:)
210:)
153:|
149:|
145:|
141:|
136:|
132:|
127:|
123:|
52:.
640:(
619:(
600:(
577:(
554:(
457:(
440:(
429::
425:@
409:(
379:(
356::
352:@
337:(
322:.
293:(
273:(
253:(
234:)
226:·
220:·
212:·
205:·
199:·
193:·
187:·
182:(
174:(
171:)
164:·
157:)
119:(
104:)
100:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.