Talk:Virginia R. Young

Primary sources

@David Eppstein: Please read WP:PRIMARY. The article, as is, contains three (3) sources:

• the faculty page
• Faculty curriculum vitae
• Mathematics Genealogy Project

Only the latter is not a primary source. Kleuske (talk) 08:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

None are independent. Kleuske (talk) 08:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Copy here from my talk page Kleuske (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC) Article tags are for encouraging improvement to articles, but in the case of Young there is no improvement to be had (I don't think the sources exist). So your tagging serves only the purpose of MAKING WIKIPEDIA UGLIER and in particular MAKING A BIOGRAPHY OF A LIVING PERSON UGLIER and not encouraging any useful purpose. There is no actual problem with the article. All material in it is sourced in a way compliant with WP:BLP, which explicitly allows the only primary source there (her curriculum vitae) to source basic factual and undisputed data about the subject (which is all that it is used for). So you are acting like a vandal by making articles worse while not identifying actual problems. Go away and find some other article to tag-war about. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: Why not answer on the TP, where stuff like this belongs? You've been around since 2006, you ought to know how things work. If there's no more sources, why is this person notable (WP:BIO)? Kleuske (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Because you apparently haven't read even the edit summaries? I already told you to look at WP:PROF for notability rather than WP:BIO. The case for notability there is extremely clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: That's (presumably) referring to 1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

So where's the "independent reliable sources" that demonstrate it? If you had something else in mind, please point it out. Just going "WP:POLICY!" in the edit summaries does not suffice. And again, why not answer me on the TP, where this stuff belongs? Inquiring minds want to know. Kleuske (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kleuske: Why don't you try reading WP:PROF again, more carefully this time. See in particular criterion C5: "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research". Now read again the first line of the article, "Virginia Ruth Young is the Cecil J. and Ethel M. Nesbitt Professor". That is a named chair, and Michigan is a major institution. It is true that she also clearly passes C1, the criterion you quoted; in academic deletion discussions, this invariably is interpreted to mean that the subject has many highly-cited publications. And her Google Scholar profile (which, look! I linked in the article but you didn't notice!) indeed shows many highly-cited publications, easily enough to pass this criterion as well (10 with over 100 citations each and an h-index of 33). In fact, it lists 3859 citations of her publications, a large fraction of which could be considered as secondary sources if the article were to be expanded to describe those publications in detail. (Sadly, they're not usable for sourcing her employment history. That's what cv's are for.) —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok. So notability is based on her holding the Nesbitt professorship (I don't know that chair and Wikipedia does not provide any details, but still, I'll take your word for it) and you agree that the article can be expanded by adding non-primary sources, expounding on her work. Therefore, the tag is placed correctly. Thank you. Now please explain why you did not respond here in the first place. Inquiring minds still want to know. Kleuske (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

If you have to take my word for it, you are editing the wrong articles. Some level of competence is required. Given that you have so thoroughly displayed your ignorance, I don't see the point of going into detail about why it would probably also be necessary to have some expertise in actuarial mathematics (not my subject) to write accurately and in any reasonable depth about her research contributions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

The "if you don't agree with me, you must be stupid" line of reasoning isn't very productive, I'm afraid. I never said (or implied) you should expand the article, I said somebody might. Since we have articles on very abstract mathematics, I think somewhere in our huge audience, there is a capable actuary (or even an actuarial mathematician) who can expand the article. So apart from personal attacks do you have any objections (other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT) to the tag being there? Kleuske (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack, nor merely don't-like-it-ism, to point out that you appear to be acting out of ignorance of our usual standards and practices for articles on academics. And I think our editorial expertise is thinner than you think: as far as I know, I am the only editor currently regularly contributing to biographies of women in mathematics. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Congrats or commiserations on that (depending on how you feel about it), but it has no bearing on the topic at hand. Besides I don't give a flying fuck what you think of me. Kleuske (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

If I am the only one editing this general topic, then your hope that significantly more specialized editors will magically appear and remove the turds you are leaving on articles is just wishful thinking. As is your apparent belief that what you are doing is in any way helpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:Don't be a jerk Kleuske (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)