745:
on Earth
Sciences and Resources was established in 1988 to provide a focal point for activities related to Earth science policy. Through its committees, panels, and working groups, it oversees a wide range of Earth science issues, including research, the environment, natural hazards, resources, geographic science and geospatial information, and data and education. It also provides guidance on U.S. participation in international Earth science programs."
1016:: This is a rather on-the-fence one. The arguments made by David Eppstein and bender235 leave me somewhere in the middle. I think David Eppstein's argument has been stronger on matter of policy, but I'm still not convinced WP:GNG is met. The Scientific American post about her is certainly part of a blog, and though I lack familiarity with this magazine's structure, I don't believe she works for the magazine itself; she only blogs there.
1059:
Looking into Dana Hunter, the writer of the post, it appears she is mostly a hobbyist with a passion for geology. She is not employed by
Scientific American, from the looks of it, and only maintains a blog there. Combined with some more digging on her, I do not believe she classes as a subject-matter
845:
My position is that blogs that come under the imprimatur of a major magazine, as this one does, are not significantly different in reliability than regular columns in the magazine — both likely subject to sufficient editorial control. They may differ from the print-edition columns in how widely-read
744:
as gratuitous and ad hominem. Yes, I know the difference between being a Fellow of the
National Academy and serving on a board, a position that is only offered to persons of established expertise. Nat Academy reports are solicited as advisory documents and by definition are high impact: "The Board
1071:
has not been met, in my opinion. We do not have multiple reliable, independent secondary sources to show that this individual meets the notability criteria, yet. I would like to echo the words of David
Eppstein, in conclusion, by noting that there are multiple individuals in this area who are more
340:
to the creator of the BLP: It might be best if you go first for the low-hanging fruit i.e. those cases where notability is rock-solid so there is no need for a discussion that could cause discomfort to the subject. Also, you might consider as a courtesy asking for the consent of persons about whom
921:
Where in GNG does it say anything about taking into account tea-leaf-readings of the publication's opinion of the significance of the column in which the source article appeared? Or even direct statements of opinion of the significance of the subject herself? GNG is purely about the existence and
880:
does not refer to
Knowledge notability criteria in determining which columns to include in its print edition and which to relegate to blogs. I am also confident that its decisions about the significance (not notability) of certain columns relative to each other is based other criteria than the
1072:
likely to meet the relevant criteria, and I'd encourage the creator of this article (and others with interest) to consider looking into creating content for those. It's certainly an underserved area and I think this encyclopedia would certainly benefit from more articles here.
607:
could you please explain what kind of award "Daughter of
Hanford" is? What group of people and/or academic discipline is it limited to, if any? How long did it exist, how often is it awarded, and who won it in the past? Do any of those past awardees have Knowledge biographies?
1026:
Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online columns they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking
582:. The "Daughter of Hanford" award qualifies her for this category "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". I just added many more citations to the page including another newspaper article for additional independent sources.
763:
means if you think that is it. I know nothing about you, and commented only on the argument, not the person making it. It was downright false to say she has "authorship of numerous
National Academy reports" because she did not write these reports.
476:
twitter feed. The featured tweet on the story appears to be about the subject here, with the tagline "She should have a
Knowledge page!" It'd be a bit strange to be notable for not having had a Knowledge page. I don't see evidence of
875:
In this question, you appear to be using "notability" in a different sense than the sense used in
Knowledge deletion discussions, which refers to the passage of certain specific Knowledge notability criteria. I am certain that
506:, which demands multiple sources that are independent of her, in-depth, and reliably published. The story by the Nature Conservancy appears to be in-depth, but non-independent because she's a trustee. On the other hand, the
206:
1055:
Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.
860:
I wouldn't doubt the reliability of the material either, but isn't it usually the lack of notability that leads to certain material being relegated to an affiliated blog rather than the "main" magazine/website?
356:
To follow up on that suggestion, if anyone reading this AfD happens to be particularly interested in creating articles about female hydrogeologists with less likelihood of pushback, then there are a number of
1048:
discuss the suitability of news blogs more generally, not just in the science field. A previous discussion on the issue suggested that the writer's credentials as a subject-matter expert, as evaluated under
266:
629:. Membership on a National Academy panel and authorship of numerous National Academy reports qualifies her under "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline".
1039:
Personal or group blogs from prominent scientists writing in their field of expertise may be usable when properly attributed. Nature Blogs, ScienceBlogs, and
Discover blogs host many such experts
768:
this hydrogeologist was writing reports on coal mine dust exposure, nothing can be "by definition" high impact, which would entail newly discovered information with content citing it and
1064:. Applying the reasoning from the WP:V archives, I would thus say that the article should not receive the same amount of weight, and I would say the difference is relevant in this AfD.
574:
200:
320:
1034:
159:
998:. There may have been canvassing on Twitter relating to this AfD. This Afd should be closed by an experienced administrator, not with a non-admin closure.
106:
91:
944:, for instance. Again, I'm not saying these sources are untrustworthy, just that we should be cautious when using them to establish notability. --
132:
127:
166:
136:
119:
674:
895:
You're right, I was using notability in the general sense of the word. Maybe I'm wrong, but blog posts seem to be "all the news that
221:
652:
481:(34 cites for top-cited pub, trailing off quickly after that), and the other coverage consists of a blog and a local news piece.
188:
1077:
86:
79:
17:
713:
notes over 50 people on the relevant boards publishing this report; only one of the other 14 on her board has an article.
57:
100:
96:
182:
378:
1073:
974:
1081:
1007:
986:
953:
931:
916:
890:
870:
855:
840:
803:
776:
754:
735:
717:
701:
617:
591:
549:
523:
490:
462:
350:
329:
310:
278:
258:
61:
1100:
936:
True, but GNG's "reliable sources" clause refers to our WP:RS corpus of guidelines, which includes provisions on
40:
178:
927:
886:
851:
545:
519:
486:
458:
123:
53:
438:
414:
430:
422:
228:
706:
Correction: Her status of a co-author of these reports is not clear, nor is their "significant impact"! I
410:
398:
382:
1096:
982:
941:
799:
570:
394:
325:
36:
472:. For background on where the article comes from: it appears that there's a USA Today story about the
418:
406:
390:
374:
726:
Your talk page states "Be Polite". Your statement above in which I was tagged is anything but polite.
442:
1003:
750:
731:
648:
634:
587:
532:
Comment for clarity that the Scientific American piece is not from the main publication, but from an
402:
346:
306:
450:
370:
366:
949:
923:
912:
882:
866:
847:
836:
828:
791:
613:
562:
541:
515:
482:
454:
434:
386:
358:
274:
254:
242:
214:
115:
67:
1021:
937:
537:
446:
298:
194:
710:
that noted her as a member of the Board an Earth Sciences but not that she actually wrote them.
846:
they are, but that's also true of columns in one magazine vs columns in a different magazine. —
75:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1095:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1017:
533:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
978:
818:
814:
795:
656:
566:
502:
is inappropriate. Instead, the relevant notability criterion for someone like her should be
426:
246:
999:
746:
727:
686:
666:
644:
630:
602:
583:
478:
342:
302:
514:
stories do seem to be in-depth and independent, giving her the minimum for notability. —
945:
908:
881:
significance of the individual topics covered in specific instances of those columns. —
862:
832:
609:
499:
473:
362:
290:
270:
250:
1068:
1061:
1050:
899:
fit to print." Again, I'm not saying that makes it unreliable (where here I mean our
773:
741:
723:
714:
698:
503:
294:
498:. She appears not to be an academic or research scientist at all, so judging her by
245:
is highly dubious. A single portrayal in a local radio channel does not suffice for
900:
669:
Where the heck did you get the idea that Daughter of Hanford is an award or honor,
153:
1045:
711:
301:
at present. Clearly an admirable person but Knowledge notability not there yet.
760:
772:
how it affected the discipline, not just being "Proceedings of a Workshop".
1033:
Narrowing this down further to get a clearer guideline is more difficult.
693:
the same as being an elected member, and merely co-authoring reports does
359:
Fellows of the Geological Society of America in the Hydrogeology Division
794:
said. Seems not to be an academic, but has had a bit of media coverage.
1053:, may be helpful in determining how much weight to give to the source.
678:
1020:
is her about page on the blog. I believe this scenario falls under
1089:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
341:
you write (although this is not required by Knowledge policy).
1035:
Knowledge:Identifying_reliable_sources_(science)#Other_sources
740:
Comment: I trust other editors will recognize the comment by
267:
list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions
707:
149:
145:
141:
673:
that it's "well-known and significant" lololol??? The
213:
540:
suggests it is usable as a source, but with caution.
922:reliability of sources, not about significance. —
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1103:). No further edits should be made to this page.
973:After further thought and especially after what
319:Note: This discussion has been included in the
265:Note: This discussion has been included in the
321:list of Washington-related deletion discussions
697:mean these reports had "significant impact"!
685:something that bestows automatic notability.
227:
8:
237:Described as a scientist, but notability by
107:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
318:
264:
643:: An editor has expressed a concern that
1054:
1038:
1025:
827:report actually being a blog post, as
903:), just that we're stretching WP:GNG
7:
679:women who worked on the Hanford site
361:who are presumably notable through
293:. Mentions in media not enough for
24:
677:is about a series of profiles of
365:but appear not to have articles:
92:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
536:published under a pseudonym.
379:Alicia Wilson (hydrogeologist)
1:
977:added, I'm changing my vote.
512:Northwest Public Broadcasting
1060:expert, for the purposes of
689:, membership on a board is
82:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1120:
1082:21:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
1008:22:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
987:21:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
954:13:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
932:03:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
917:23:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
891:20:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
871:18:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
856:16:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
841:15:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
804:08:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
777:18:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
755:14:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
736:01:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
718:23:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
702:23:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
618:16:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
592:16:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
575:16:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
550:08:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
524:08:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
491:06:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
463:07:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
351:07:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
330:02:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
311:00:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
279:23:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
259:23:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
62:21:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
1092:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
708:removed seven citations
823:no concerns about the
759:You have no idea what
439:Isabelle M. Cozzarelli
415:Richelle M. Allen-King
1074:ProcrastinatingReader
975:ProcrastinatingReader
942:human-interest pieces
431:Elizabeth J. Screaton
423:Madeline E. Schreiber
80:Articles for deletion
659:to this discussion.
411:Margaret A. Townsend
399:Martha S. Phanikumar
383:Gwendolyn Macpherson
878:Scientific American
825:Scientific American
508:Scientific American
116:Zelma Maine-Jackson
68:Zelma Maine-Jackson
54:Academic Challenger
395:Maureen A. Muldoon
1044:The archives for
660:
419:Laurel B. Goodwin
407:Karen Johannesson
391:Michelle M. Lorah
375:Dorothy J. Vesper
332:
281:
241:of the points in
97:Guide to deletion
87:How to contribute
1111:
1094:
822:
638:
606:
443:Eileen P. Poeter
427:Laura J. Crossey
328:
232:
231:
217:
169:
157:
139:
77:
34:
1119:
1118:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1101:deletion review
1090:
831:pointed out? --
812:
600:
534:affiliated blog
474:MissingSciFaces
403:Margaret Eggers
324:
174:
165:
130:
114:
111:
74:
71:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1117:
1115:
1106:
1105:
1085:
1084:
1065:
1057:
1042:
1030:
1029:
1011:
992:
991:
990:
989:
968:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
957:
956:
924:David Eppstein
883:David Eppstein
848:David Eppstein
829:Russ Woodroofe
807:
806:
792:David Eppstein
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
738:
720:
661:
623:
622:
621:
620:
595:
594:
577:
563:David Eppstein
555:
554:
553:
552:
542:Russ Woodroofe
527:
526:
516:David Eppstein
493:
483:Russ Woodroofe
467:
466:
465:
455:David Eppstein
451:Carol M. Wicks
371:Laura K. Lautz
367:Sarah L. Lewis
334:
333:
315:
314:
283:
282:
235:
234:
171:
110:
109:
104:
94:
89:
72:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1116:
1104:
1102:
1098:
1093:
1087:
1086:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1070:
1066:
1063:
1058:
1056:
1052:
1047:
1043:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1031:
1028:
1024:which states
1023:
1019:
1015:
1012:
1009:
1005:
1001:
997:
994:
993:
988:
984:
980:
976:
972:
969:
955:
951:
947:
943:
939:
935:
934:
933:
929:
925:
920:
919:
918:
914:
910:
906:
902:
898:
894:
893:
892:
888:
884:
879:
874:
873:
872:
868:
864:
859:
858:
857:
853:
849:
844:
843:
842:
838:
834:
830:
826:
820:
816:
811:
810:
809:
808:
805:
801:
797:
793:
789:
788:
784:
778:
775:
771:
770:demonstrating
767:
762:
758:
757:
756:
752:
748:
743:
739:
737:
733:
729:
725:
721:
719:
716:
712:
709:
705:
704:
703:
700:
696:
692:
688:
684:
680:
676:
672:
668:
665:
662:
658:
654:
650:
646:
642:
636:
632:
628:
625:
624:
619:
615:
611:
604:
599:
598:
597:
596:
593:
589:
585:
581:
578:
576:
572:
568:
564:
560:
557:
556:
551:
547:
543:
539:
535:
531:
530:
529:
528:
525:
521:
517:
513:
509:
505:
501:
497:
494:
492:
488:
484:
480:
475:
471:
468:
464:
460:
456:
452:
448:
444:
440:
436:
435:Anne E. Carey
432:
428:
424:
420:
416:
412:
408:
404:
400:
396:
392:
388:
387:Susan Swanson
384:
380:
376:
372:
368:
364:
360:
355:
354:
352:
348:
344:
339:
336:
335:
331:
327:
326:North America
322:
317:
316:
312:
308:
304:
300:
296:
292:
289:. No pass of
288:
285:
284:
280:
276:
272:
268:
263:
262:
261:
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
240:
230:
226:
223:
220:
216:
212:
208:
205:
202:
199:
196:
193:
190:
187:
184:
180:
177:
176:Find sources:
172:
168:
164:
161:
155:
151:
147:
143:
138:
134:
129:
125:
121:
117:
113:
112:
108:
105:
102:
98:
95:
93:
90:
88:
85:
84:
83:
81:
76:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
50:no consensus
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1091:
1088:
1013:
995:
970:
904:
896:
877:
824:
790:As per what
786:
785:
769:
765:
694:
690:
682:
670:
663:
640:
626:
579:
558:
511:
507:
495:
469:
337:
286:
243:WP:NACADEMIC
238:
236:
224:
218:
210:
203:
197:
191:
185:
175:
162:
73:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1022:WP:NEWSBLOG
979:Kj cheetham
971:Weak delete
815:Kj cheetham
796:Kj cheetham
655:) has been
538:WP:NEWSBLOG
447:Laura Toran
299:WP:Too soon
201:free images
1000:Xxanthippe
938:news blogs
819:XOR'easter
761:ad hominem
747:Pcgr1ff1th
728:MethanoJen
687:Pcgr1ff1th
667:MethanoJen
645:Pcgr1ff1th
631:Pcgr1ff1th
603:MethanoJen
584:MethanoJen
567:XOR'easter
363:WP:PROF#C3
343:Xxanthippe
303:Xxanthippe
1097:talk page
1037:suggests
946:bender235
909:bender235
863:bender235
833:bender235
787:Weak keep
722:Comment:
671:much less
657:canvassed
610:bender235
559:Weak keep
496:Weak keep
271:Shellwood
251:bender235
247:WP:SIGCOV
37:talk page
1099:or in a
1027:process.
774:Reywas92
742:Reywas92
724:Reywas92
715:Reywas92
699:Reywas92
675:citation
653:contribs
479:WP:NPROF
249:either.
160:View log
101:glossary
39:or in a
1067:Hence,
996:Comment
907:far. --
766:Even if
500:WP:PROF
338:Comment
291:WP:Prof
207:WP refs
195:scholar
133:protect
128:history
78:New to
1069:WP:GNG
1062:WP:SPS
1051:WP:SPS
1014:Delete
897:wasn't
664:Delete
504:WP:GNG
470:Delete
449:, and
295:WP:GNG
287:Delete
179:Google
137:delete
901:WP:RS
222:JSTOR
183:books
167:Stats
154:views
146:watch
142:links
16:<
1078:talk
1046:WP:V
1018:Here
1004:talk
983:talk
950:talk
940:and
928:talk
913:talk
905:very
887:talk
867:talk
852:talk
837:talk
817:and
800:talk
751:talk
732:talk
649:talk
641:Note
635:talk
627:Keep
614:talk
588:talk
580:Keep
571:talk
561:per
546:talk
520:talk
510:and
487:talk
459:talk
347:talk
307:talk
275:talk
255:talk
215:FENS
189:news
150:logs
124:talk
120:edit
58:talk
695:not
691:not
683:not
453:. —
297:so
239:any
229:TWL
158:– (
1080:)
1006:)
985:)
952:)
930:)
915:)
889:)
869:)
861:--
854:)
839:)
802:)
753:)
734:)
681:,
651:•
639:—
637:)
616:)
608:--
590:)
573:)
565:.
548:)
522:)
489:)
461:)
445:,
441:,
437:,
433:,
429:,
425:,
421:,
417:,
413:,
409:,
405:,
401:,
397:,
393:,
389:,
385:,
381:,
377:,
373:,
369:,
353:.
349:)
323:.
309:)
277:)
269:.
257:)
209:)
152:|
148:|
144:|
140:|
135:|
131:|
126:|
122:|
60:)
52:.
1076:(
1041:.
1010:.
1002:(
981:(
948:(
926:(
911:(
885:(
865:(
850:(
835:(
821::
813:@
798:(
749:(
730:(
647:(
633:(
612:(
605::
601:@
586:(
569:(
544:(
518:(
485:(
457:(
345:(
313:.
305:(
273:(
253:(
233:)
225:·
219:·
211:·
204:·
198:·
192:·
186:·
181:(
173:(
170:)
163:·
156:)
118:(
103:)
99:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.