Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Eszter Hargittai - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Arbustoo (talk | contribs) at 04:10, 21 January 2006 ([]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:10, 21 January 2006 by Arbustoo (talk | contribs) ([])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Eszter Hargittai

Improperly (in my opinion this is apparently disputed) speedied under CSD:A7 now listed for due process  ALKIVAR 01:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete being interviewed or quoted doesn't make one notable, getting a scholarship doesn't make one notable. Being an adjunct professor is not notable. This person is on a tenure-track, and when she gets there maybe that will be notable. Ruby 02:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'd disagree: being interviewed or quoted DOES make one notable. You seem to be suggesting, Ruby, that for academics the ONLY measure of notability is tenure. I'd disagree; it's only one measure. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 03:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment Not to be a WikiLawyer or anything, but the guide for notability says, "Professors are not notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field of interest." This is a high bar to clear. The contributions of Eszter Hargittai seem to consist of writing a dissertation on the internet and being the media's on-call expert on internet issues. Now if she had invented the internet like Al Gore that would be a horse of a different color. Ruby 03:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd disagree with a reading of those guidelines that implies that professors have to clear a higher bar than non-professors. To clarify, I don't think she clears the notability bar by very much, but I think she clears it. The article in its current state is way too vanity, though. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 03:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)