Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judy Dushku

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Dushku

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

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

non notable for lack of truly reliable sources substantially about the subject , written in the style of a press release, and in large part based on peripheral involvement in a single event. DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: as far as I can tell on a first pass scrutiny. Does not professor pass WP:NACADEMIC? The Sisters Help of Exponent II seems significant enough.[1], [2], ... . I'm not sure this fully addresses the nom.s concern then. This is a new article and AfD nom. may relate to page curation.Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I’m puzzled. The nom sounds like it relates to some other article. I see a lead, which references standing in Mormon feminism, academia, co-founding a 45-year-old journal, and an NGO, and more. I then see a set of balanced sections. I see plenty of referencing, no sign of press release - ?! - and what single event? Mitt Romney? It’s just an aspect, and the subject was much interviewed, but the article does not over-highlight it. I suggest to highlight any specific concerns in the article but with a couple of good profiles (refs #3 and #8, and also considering the university page, Exponent II, and #11) , I see no major concerns. Twilson r (talk) 06:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A couple of broad articles for GNG, and well-cited on the detail. Was well-aired during Romney’s push for nomination but the lady has a very real career in journalism and academia too. 91.193.179.137 (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Week delete The content of the article seems extremely trivial and lacking in-depth detail. Plus, it's clearly written to shed her in an overly positive light. The lead about her standing in Mormon feminism (however one gets that) is questionable, as there's nothing really later on in the article about it. Except that she was involved with a magazine that printed feminist articles, among other subjects. The thing about Exponent II is questionable to establish notability also because its just a none profit journal that isn't associated with the church and might not even be notable on it's own. She's notable by association of being one of 4 people that brought it back though. Let alone just for doing a column in it. There's nothing that applies just on her academic accomplishments either as she doesn't seem to have a had a significant impact on anything, hasn't held a highest level post, or accomplished anything else WP:NACADEMIC mentions. Just being a professor doesn't qualify. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think Twilson r's analysis is basically correct. (A couple more news items: [3][4]) The article may need edits for tone here and there, but I'm not seeing a problem that we need deletion to fix. XOR'easter (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as the article creator, I'm keen to learn, but first, I took the article on as a challenge, with no prior knowledge or position, so I really can't accept suggestions of "PR"-type bias, and second, I did gather citations over more than a week (it's in my subpages), including a couple of items of some depth and breadth, so I believed WP:N to be met, and am confident that the sections meet WP:V. Re. WP:NPOV, there is a suggestion above that the article may be overly-favourable, which I don't quite follow, but if more discussion of the subject's positions would help, I can use some of the sources to expand coverage. I've reviewed thousands of articles myself, and I would not have let this one out without believing it was at least Start class, would not aim as high as B class, or in-depth, from the get-go, but was hoping others, with more specialist knowledge, would help build it up further. SeoR (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have edited the article to remove bad sources and added some new ones from prominent newspapers. She still easily passes WP:GNG and there is enough to make a case for her as a public leader. As an aside SeoR you can not vote as the article's creator, but you can comment here. IphisOfCrete (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for both things @IphisOfCrete:. I have not had an AfD on an article creation before, and I actually thought it would be logical not to make a !vote, but did not find that point on a quick check on procedure - apologies to all, corrected to Comment. On the sources, I was wary of FB, but included it as the original source of a story (but not a central one, one concerning a family member), great to have that clarified. SeoR (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A lot of clunky language is still here, but it has improved thanks to DGG's nomination. Dorama285 (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Twopower332.1938 (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My opinion remains: hopelessly promotional and over personal. Every section contains extremely peripheral material, usually indirect quotes of what she says about herselgf:

"Dushku has commented that her apolitical parents were appalled by the racism encountered in some places in the South of the US, and ensured that the family grew up as bridge-builders, showing goodwill towards people of all cultures. She pursued the same philosophy when she took students into the family home, not making a separate apartment but having them share the same space, and dinner table, so that they became like family members. Later she and the children would visit some at home in their own countries"

"She took on a range of administrative work, in addition to teaching duties, managing aspects of student affairs and supporting foreign students"

"While in Dakar, Dushku and her husband met a number of surviving child soldiers, child brides and refugees from countries which had encountered severe disruption, and decided that they wanted to pursue non-governmental organization work to support such survivors." The article then goes int odetail about the organization. The wording, "decided [for whatever reason] that they wanted to [do something ] " is very common here, and always promotional; encyclopedic writing should be "They [did something]" DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Are you now refusing articles over style? I teach English for a living and I'd call the above an unusual definition of the word 'promotional' but I see your point about 'personal'. I think this is written in the style we call 'modern journalistic', as opposed to 'classical journalistic', or the even drier 'academic'. 'Modern journalistic' is designed to engage readers, making them feel closer to topics. As an occasional 'fixer' of prose on your site, I'd say the style is quite common on Wikipedia, perhaps due to your reliance on media sources for many of your articles. I'd be delighted if my students could write fluently in any of these styles but if that's the issue then the solution is just to strip out over-the-top or fluffy material. I can take a shot. 83.220.238.66 (talk) 08:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC) I did a quick 'stripping out' of content which could be seen as personal, as this is not necessarily neutral or verifiable beyond the words of the article's subject. I cut out most of the first and third sections highlighted by Mr/Ms DGG, while the middle sentence seemed more objective, describing duties taken by the academic being profiled. This is very normal for mid- and high-level academics. You have a policy called Neutral Point of View which this leaner version of the article now fits better. I hope the article author appreciates my intent, and the topic of the article is interesting and I hope you keep it in some form. 83.220.238.66 (talk) 08:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both editors above - this clarifies some of the concerns for me. I see the point as to NPOV when quoting the subject, and will keep that in mind for the future, focusing on "who did what" and not what might have motivated them. I would argue, however, that some background may be appropriate when explaining why a person took up peace or feminist campaigns, but appreciate that some external point of view would be optimal in such case. To the second editor, I appreciate your action with the virtual scalpel. On punctuation, I see points of difference, partly down to varieties of English, and will add a tag to clarify that American English should be used, indeed; I did try to do this but my home variety is Hiberno-English. I continue to seek further neutral sources. SeoR (talk) 09:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly we do and should refuse articles when the style is so promotional that it cannot be fixed. The basic concept behind everything we do is that we're an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are objective, and that means an insistence on Verifiability and Nonpromotional.. Material that isn't objective has no place in them. In the present day, with advertising so prevalent almost to the exclusion of information in almost all media, Wikipedia has all hte more reason to emphasize this. If an article is fixed during hte discussion, it shouldn't be deleted; if it's only partway fixed, it can go to draft But even after an article has been deleted, anyone is welcome to try over. (My own experience tho, is that for highly promotional material, there is usually not sufficient substance behind it to meet notability . But that is often clear only b once promotionalism has been removed) DGG ( talk ) 20:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After scanning through the article and reading the discussion, I gravitate towards keeping it, signaling its issues with the appropriate templates Samer.hc (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If there is a concern that this entry was promoted by Trump's people as part of their revenge on Mitt Romney then someone is perhaps, as we say, "reaching." It mentions the spat between these two faces of Mormonism only in passing, whereas columns were written quoting Prof. Dushku on Romney. And I suspect Trump's people could find better ways than writing up a veteran academic, maybe check more directly relevant articles. Not my area of expertise but this article seems kinda useful, niche, but then so are a lot of the 6 million articles. 192.176.1.105 (talk) 08:27, 2 March 2020 (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.