Talk:Jennifer McCreight

Is this a person who is notable for one event?

Before more work is done (and I do want to commend User:Disavian who has sourced this), I have to ask if there is there suitable media coverage to justify this article and Boobquake, in relation to the policies: WP:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event and WP:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event? Novangelis (talk) 00:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

She's on the board of Directors for the Secular Student Alliance and is well known in the skeptic community. That said, beyond boobquake, I don't know that she's gotten a lot of coverage in more well known media outlets. I'm guessing that because of her scientific studies and activities with the SSA, she probably has some collegiate press coverage, but I don't know for sure. I say this as a person who reads her blog daily; she may not have enough coverage for her article to be expanded that much. Millahnna (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's an edge case, and any experienced editor will think WP:BLP1E, but I think she's gotten just enough coverage outside of Boobquake (esp. in atheist and skeptic activism) to be generally notable. I'm going to take another crack at the article soon and see if I can expand on those claims, hopefully with sources. I was also thinking of putting it up for DYK, but I haven't decided what the blurb would be yet. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it helps but I think there has been some external coverage of TAM and some of the other panels she's been on recently. I read so many skeptic blogs (and they all cover a lot of the same stuff and refer back to each other) that I'm not entirely positive I'm not thinking of someone else, though. But I'd swear that PZ Meyers and someone else recently linked to something about some atheist conferences with coverage that had a mention. Or maybe it's interviews she did related to setting up SSAs at specific conferences I'm thinking of? Oh please don't make me dig through my RSS feeds trying to find the thing I can't quite remember right...

However it shakes out, great work on getting the info in there. Millahnna (talk) 01:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you've made a case. I'm not sure if it would get broad agreement, but you had some third-party reliable sources I had been unaware of. Novangelis (talk) 02:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually a bit proud of how well this article is coming along. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd like to expand the coverage of her speaking, so if you have a reliable source that covers her attending TAM (or some other speaking event) I'd like to see that :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find the posts with the external links I was thinking of. Don't count on it though. I probably get 100 posts a day in my skeptics and science folder alone and my memory on this is really shaky. I'm not positive that what I'm remembering wasn't just all of the blogs pointing in circles at each other instead of to a link at an actual news source. McCreight said on her blog recently (comments in an article about wikipedia, real recent post) that she was covered a lot in the news at her school in Indiana because of her efforts related to the SSA. Should be able to track down those sources. Millahnna (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I just became aware of this page, and Boobquake, from a comment at WT:V, and to me, this page screams BLP1E and AfD. Just so you know... --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I never was able to find what I was looking for above in my rss feeds. There's just too much of it to dig through; I'm pretty handy with greader's search function and I still couldn't pinpoint anything. I'm guessing I was right that I was remembering it wrong or that it was a case of circular blog references. I've seen McCreight make reference to emailing people some scans from the news articles that covered some of her stuff from the SSA in Indiana for the very purpose of working on this article so hopefully one of those editors will show up soon. Otherwise I fear Tryptofish is right. Might want to userfy this so that additional work can be done if enough info becomes available to re-add the article down the line. Millahnna (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is a suggestion, and it's just a suggestion. How about making this page a redirect to Boobquake? That would preserve all of the edit history so that anyone who wants to re-create the bio page later could do so easily. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

No one has objected yet to a redirect, and I'm concerned about the BLP issues of leaving the page as it is. I'm going to wait another day or so for any further comments, but if there are still no objections I'll go ahead with making the redirect. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I object to it, but hadn't seen the discussion here until now. I'm undoing the redirect- I think she has sufficient notability outside of Boobquake. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Post AfD

The AfD has been closed as "no consensus", which I want to point out is not the same thing as just leave things the way that they are. I've discussed the closure with the closing administrator. I've just made some edits to the page, removing what I feel was regarded by most experienced editors as puff material, and focusing the page on what the subject may be notable for. I continue to believe that the page should be made a redirect to Boobquake, and the closing admin has made it clear that this is an option which may still be discussed. I hope that we can set aside the SPA politicking, and come to a consensus on redirecting. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I continue to favor the redirect as all the non-Boobquake claims to notability do not draw this out of BLP1E territory; there is too little third-party RS coverage.Novangelis (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

One of the clearest cases of BLP1E that I have seen in a long time. As an academic, this person is promising but far from being notable as yet (perhaps in the future, but not now). Obvious redirect to Boobquake. --Crusio (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. There is hardly any info on this page that isn't already on the Boobquake page, and it would be very easy to add any of that info to the Boobquake page. DaffyBridge (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember seeing many SPAs, and the one or two that were present hardly contributed to the AfD. Either way, there is no consensus to redirect, so let's let the article develop. How about WP:NOTPAPER? There's nothing wrong with a little redundancy. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 00:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please look at my suggestions below

WP:NOTRESUME

Dream Focus just reverted my on my removal of the subject's scientific publications. I would like an explanation of what that material has to do with the subject being noted for commentary on atheism, skepticism, and feminism. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• I have placed a request for more editors to look here, at WT:PROF#Please see. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The article is about the person, so everything relevant to them should be included. The fact they are mostly known for one thing, doesn't mean the article should focus only on that one thing. These publications help define/understand who they are. Dream Focus 17:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

It's no surprise that I see it differently. I have no objection (assuming we do not redirect the page) to including where she went to college and graduate school, as basic biographical information. But listing a few low-impact scientific publications and an undergraduate award doesn't really "help define/understand who they are", except to the extent of rather artificially pumping up the claims to notability. There is nothing in those publications that help the reader understand the subject's positions on atheism, skepticism, or feminism. Even for someone who was notable as an academic scientist, we wouldn't list papers like these! I think this is very much a case of WP:NOTRESUME. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually articles for academic scientist often list papers they have published. Its very common. I don't see what part of Not Resume this violates. Dream Focus 18:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

What you are talking about is something very different. Notable academic scientists have tens or hundreds of scholarly publications, and it's not our practice to provide a full CV listing of them. Instead, we sometimes list several high-impact publications, the work that made the subject notable in the first place. I doubt you will find mentions of an undergraduate award, or of all the papers they published in graduate school. And you still haven't explained how this information helps the reader understand the subject's work on atheism, skepticism, and feminism, other than by puffing up the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The first one is published in a notable publication.

• McCreight, Jennifer (2011). Knell, Robert (ed.). "DNA from copulatory plugs can give insights into sexual selection". Journal of Zoology. 284 (4). Wiley-Blackwell: 300–304. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.2011.00806.x. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |laysummary=, and |laysource= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

The third one a book notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article.

• McCreight, Jennifer (2010). "Gifts for the Godless". In Harvie, Robin; Meyers, Stephanie (eds.). The Atheist's Guide to Christmas. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |coauthors=, |separator=, |laysummary=, |trans_title=, |chapterurl=, |trans_chapter=, and |lastauthoramp= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Not sure if the other book listed in the article is notable, but no sense not listing all three things she has done, instead of just two of them. Dream Focus 18:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Notable journals like Journal of Zoology publish tens of thousands of papers each year. Publishing in a journal like that is really nothing out of the ordinary for a scientist. As Tryptofish explains above, we generally only list publications in scientist bios that demonstrably have made significant impact (often measured by how often they have been cited by other scientists - usually hundreds of times). These articles/book chapters just came out and will therefore have very low citations rates. Whether perhaps they will be come notable in the future, is up in the air. --Crusio (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me say first I know nothing about the subject and have no axe to grind. I came here because I have WP:PROF bookmarked and so Tryptofish's invite popped up on my watchlist.

The answer to Tryptofish's query -- "what [does] that material has to do with the subject being noted for commentary on atheism, skepticism, and feminism" -- is this: it doesn't matter. If a person is notable because facts X and Y fit some notability guideline, then an article on that person is justified. But article content need not be limited to the X and Y which qualified the person for notability -- quite the opposite, the article should include everything that a reader is likely to want to know about the person to put his or her achievements in context.

When you think about it, is has to be this way. Lincoln is notable for many things, but the fact that his mother died when he was nine isn't one of them -- lots of people's mothers die. And yet the article includes this because, given we've agreed people will want to read about Lincoln, we should tell a complete story.

Of course there are limits, and what exactly what should be included and what left out isn't easy to agree upon all the time, but for sure the outer boundary of inclusion is not the person's notable achievements.

Now then... having arrived here and looked at the article, I have to say I don't see notability there. Tell me if this list isn't a fair boiling down of the article:

1. graduated from...pursuing Ph.D.
2. attributes her activism to
3. had academic work published in...chapter was published in...Selected publications (listing 3)
4. cofounded society at Purdue...joined the board of the Secular Student Alliance.
5. received an American Society of Mammalogists Undergraduate Award
6. has given talks at a number of events...on the speakers bureau...scheduled to appear at
7. known for her activism in atheism, skepticism and feminism.
8. has been a guest on a few podcasts...has been featured in More's What the New Feminists Look Like and by Dan Savage in Slog.
9. started Boobquake

My take on the notability value of the above:

• 1-4. This is stuff you'd include once it's decided to have an article, but itself has no notability value at all. Being published in a notable journal (or a chapter in a notable book) doesn't make you notable unless your paper or your chapter is specifically the subject of significant, independent coverage in reliable sources etc etc and so on and so forth.
• 5. undergrad awards have no value unless extremely exceptional in some way, but I can't think of any examples -- I'm pretty sure even Rhodes Scholars aren't considered notable (for that, anyway)
• 6. Unless the talks themselves were the subject of significant, independent coverage (significant reaction, caused a stir commented on by several others) they have no notability value, and I don't see any such coverage other than, perhaps, with respect to Boobquake (see below)
• 7 is a claim to notability, but isn't evidence of it -- the source cited for this statement makes only two passing mentions of McCreight (in a 3000-word piece):

Though atheist thinkers and bloggers like Ophelia Benson and Jen McCreight summarily stepped up to counter Shores with lists of prominent female atheists – science writer Natalie Angier, author and blogger Greta Christina, comedians Kathy Griffin and Julia Sweeney – the ensuing pileup of names only brought the issues identified by Shores' post into sharper relief....And if the work of women like Hecht, Jacoby, McCreight and Gaylor indicates anything, it's that there's a need for atheist voices from all genders and sexes to – very rationally – make themselves heard.

That's not signficant coverage.

• 8. The Savage piece is just one paragraph. I can't access the More piece.
• 9. There's no question Boobquake is notable, and it has its own article (to which McC. is central, obviously).

I can't see how this adds up to notability under GNG or any specific guideline -- certainly not PROF. Perhaps there are other sources not yet listed, but absent that I think this needs to go to AfD (in which case some, but not much, of this article's material might belong in Boobquake article). Thoughts? EEng (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for a very thoughtful answer to my question, and I see your point about including such material once notability has been established. But, in fact, the page just came back from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer McCreight today, with "no consensus", which is why I also raise the issue of redirecting, above. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Tryptofish, you've got me convinced, too. Anyway, apart from the publications,it seems we agree about redirecting. I would like to note that a redirect can be done without an AfD and that a "no consensus" decision does not mean that a redirect is verboten. There are precedents for this... --Crusio (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The history of this can be followed by starting at the first thread of this talk page. With a rather small amount of discussion, I thought that there was consensus for a redirect, and did it. A bit later, I was reverted, which led to the AfD. The closing admin has said explicitly on his talk page that a redirect would be fine, if that's the consensus in this talk. I think that this discussion needs to stay open for a while, because obviously there were strong objections to redirecting last time, but I hope that some editors can eventually be persuaded that redirecting is the right thing to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The overwhelming consensus was to keep the article, not eliminated it by deletion or redirecting(same thing, article not here). Read those who said "keep" [1] and you can see they believe the person is notable for reasons other than boobquake. Do you really want to have this conversation all over again? Dream Focus 21:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent the outcome. To quote: "The result was no consensus. There is no consensus to delete or redirect." There was no "overwhelming consensus" to keep; it wasn't even mentioned at closing.Novangelis (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't realize there was an AfD -- I've just reviewed the discussion. Keep calm, everyone. No reason to panic.

DreamFocus, I wouldn't say that "overwhelming consensus" was keep, and neither did the closing admin. The vote was clearly for keep, but as we all like to keep reminding one another, it's not a vote. (Plus the apparent fact that the discussion was mentioned externally may have brought an unusual number of sympathetic voices in.)

I predict this will go to AfD again, so while we're still friends let's do this: DreamFocus, can you do what you can to dig up more coverage of her? I gather you'd like to improve the article so you'd want such stuff for raw material anyway. If you want to integrate it into the article go ahead, or just collect the links and paste them here on Talk. Then we can all talk about notability what to do again. So let's all wait and see what DreamFocus (and any other interested editors) can come up with. OK?

EEng (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

It survived the AFD earlier this week. It'll survive future attempts as well. Most people said notability had already been established, and I agree with them. Read their arguments if you aren't convinced, or look through the article. These three things aren't about confirming notability, the discussion was whether they were important enough to have in the article. I see no reason not to list everything someone has published, unless the list would be too long, and with only three items here, that isn't the case. Dream Focus 21:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for next steps

DreamFocus, I want to say again that I came here almost by accident and thought I'd lend a hand -- I have no skin in the game. Once again, you can see from others' comments that this is likely to go to AfD again -- the discussion is no longer just about what to include in the article (and as you can see I agreed with you about that). And if it does go to AfD, with the sources currently present I predict it would be deleted. People just saying she's notable, without juxtaposing sources against notability guidelines, carry little weight, and that's what most of the "keep" comments were.Remember, the outcome wasn't "keep" but rather "no consensus". So if you really think McCreight deserves an article, why not start adding sources now? That will build the case against deletion (if they're reliable, significant, etc.) and improve the article at the same time. If you don't want to invest extra work in an article that might not survive, just paste the links here on talk "raw" for others to consider. EEng (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, I want to thank you for being very helpful in this discussion. I agree with giving editors a chance to better source this page, although I skeptical that they will be able to overcome the problems that it has. I'm OK with having been reverted so many times and I'm no fan of getting into edit wars, but, Disavian, the page still reads like editors are trying to pump it up by adding resume material instead of encyclopedic material. And to the editors who are trying just a little too hard to frame the AfD outcome as some sort of rock-solid consensus to keep, how about looking at what the closing administrator actually said: [2]. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Checking back

It's been a bit more than a week. I don't mean to be pushy, and I'm not trying to rush anyone, but I feel it's appropriate to check back. Are the editors who oppose redirecting the page making any progress in improving the sourcing? If not, I don't think that it's right to just leave things indefinitely. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Give it a month at least. Then no one can accuse you of being in a hurry. Who knows... maybe she really is notable and someone will turn up a source showing that? And if not, no harm letting it stay in the meantime. What matters is that sooner or later the appropriate decision is make based on the best sources that could be found. EEng (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You didn't get your way at the AFD, so now you are trying to eliminate the article by other means. Stop it. At the AFD, most stated the article should be kept, not deleted/redirected. Follow consensus and stop trying to game the system. Dream Focus 01:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• To clarify, Tryptofish tried to redirect this article already, someone objected, so he sent it to AFD saying it should be redirected. The closing administrated stated "The result was no consensus. There is no consensus to delete or redirect. v/r - TP 01:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)" There is no consensus to redirect. So starting this up again immediately after that, and trying to get a redirect, is gaming the system. Most people have already stated the article should be kept. Dream Focus 02:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• It is entirely appropriate to discuss redirection. As Tryptofish pointed out, the AfD's closing admin suggested doing so.
• DreamFocus, as far as I can see Tryptofish has been polite and you've been increasingly truculent; and you have definitely misrepresented the outcome of the AfD (which is not based on how many people wanted this or that, as I'm sure you know) and bu doing so you make yourself look really, really bad. Please discuss the merits of what someone proposes and stop accusing people. (Also, please pay more attention to formatting and indentation so others can more easily follow the conversation.)
• Tryptofish, once again I say: there's no reason not to give plenty of chance for someone to chase up new sources, so why not put this out of your mind a month or two.
• DreamFocus, once again I say: since you're so obviously want the article to stay, and the article is so bare now, why don't you go find some sources? I've searched and haven't found any.

EEng (talk) 03:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Wise words, EEng! --Crusio (talk) 07:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• He politely tells the majority of people their opinions don't matter, if expressed in the AFD, and tries to eliminate the article anyway? Do you need everyone in the AFD to come over and repeat what they already said? That the article is fine and should be kept, not redirected? Dream Focus 10:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been busy IRL, so I haven't put any time into working on this article. Tryptofish, you might want to take a couple months break from poking this article - it feels like you're making this into a battleground. Let it evolve naturally for a while before you really decide to push the implications of "no consensus" :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• I thought I asked a very reasonable question, and I didn't give anyone any deadlines, just asked editors to pay attention to it. The personal attacks against me say much more about the editors saying those things, than they do about me. And in fact, the tenor of the responses make me more concerned that the people who are so willing to tell me what I should do for the next few months are, themselves, just hoping that they can ignore the concerns that were raised. EEng, I'm in no hurry, but I honestly do not believe it takes a month to find sources. But I'm still not giving anyone any deadlines. Take your time, folks. And if you're bent out of shape by anything I said, there's a great way to shut me up: improve the article! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

So you don't see anything wrong with ignoring what most of the people said, the article being fine and should be kept, and trying to do something else instead? The article is fine. If you have a problem with it, fix it yourself. Don't think everyone else should do things just to make you happy. Dream Focus 23:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I've looked for sources. I would never have raised the concerns that I did, without doing that first. After the AfD, I actually did make several edits intended to improve the page. I certainly have no expectations that you should do anything to make me happy. In fact, I think you have made it very clear that you are very satisfied with the page in its present form, and that you have no intention of improving it further. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

DreamFocus:

• I'm sorry you disliked my adjustments [3] to the indentation of the discussion so far, but you shouldn't refer what I did as "ridiculous" [4].
• Please stop insisting that others improve the article. We can't (at least Tryptofish and I can't) because we've looked for more sources but can't find any. Without more sources there's nothing to say -- at least nothing that lends notability. Maybe you can succeed where we've failed.
• You seem to be saying that what happened at AfD makes further discussion of merger or deletion inappropriate (or maybe you're saying some rule required some kind of waiting period). I believe you're wrong.
• Therefore, in about a month if the article's sources still don't establish notability, then I'll make another attempt to find them online. If I that fails, I'm going to open a discussion here for a merge to Boobquake.
  • If you think that by doing so, or by saying I intend to do so, I am violating some policy or guideline, then post a complaint at ANI or Witiekkiteque or whatever you feel the right forum is. (The rest of what I say here is based my assumption as to the response you'll receive i.e. a startling rebuke.)
  • If you think that by doing so, or by saying I inyend to do so, I am being not-nice, or stubborn, or unwise, but am violating no policy or guideline, then I'm sorry but I'm gonna do it anyway.
• Either way, it's up to you whether to participate in the subsequent discussion.
• To the extent your future posts neither add to the discussion of the article itself (including questions of merger or deletion) nor give a policy-based reason that such a discussion shouldn't take place, I'll likely make no response.

Tryptofish:

• If you're agreeable to joining me in forgoing response to D.F.'s posts (except per the last point above), and will indicate that now, you'll be less tempted to feel you need to defend yourself against irrelevent things he posts in the future, and a lot of unnecessary trouble will be saved.

See y'all in a month! EEng (talk) 02:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I broadly see it pretty much that way too. (And I'd like to think that I know how to decide whether to respond or not respond to what someone says to me.) I figure in about a month, plus or minus, it would be a good idea to take a look at where things stand, and to do so in a way that is based on discussion. I have zero intention of unilaterally making a redirect unless there is, first, consensus to do so. If, later on, the page is much-improved, then all will be well. If, instead, there has been no progress, I believe that a good initial step would be to ask at WP:BLPN for previously uninvolved editors who are interested in BLP issues to give advice as to whether or not WP:BLP1E applies here. After that input, we can all see where we stand. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I hope I didn't come across as bossy. It's just I know how infuriating it is when someone keeps repeating the same non-sequiturs over and over and over, and by saying in advance that I won't reply absent new arguments, the urge -- later, when the other guy has sung his refrain for the nth time -- to waste time explaining yet again is lessened. EEng (talk) 01:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Its just as infuriating when people say it doesn't matter if most people want something one way, that they will ignore consensus, and just keep arguing to get what they want anyway, and if they can't get their way now, they'll just try again later, or canvass at other places to bring over new people that will hopefully agree with them. Dream Focus 01:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

A few posts back I suggested that Tryptofish and I enter a pact, under which we would save our breath by not trying to explain things to you anymore. But really, this one's just tooooo good. (Please forgive me, Tryptofish -- I can't resist.) Here goes:

Dreamfocus, you keep saying we're ignoring the consensus of the AfD. Yet at the top of this very page there's a banner, like so:

So I ask you (rhetorically, of course -- reply neither required nor desired): What part of no consensus do you not understand?

OK, that was the last one, I swear. Starting now I absolutely, positively promise to stick to the rule I gave earlier. (I've put it in bold now as to help me remember.)

EEng (talk) 05:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The AFD closed as: "The result was no consensus. There is no consensus to delete or redirect." The nominator sends this to AFD saying it should be redirected, doesn't get his way, and then starts the same discussion here. If everyone who participated in the AFD gave the same argument on this article's talk page, would you be having this argument still? There was no consensus to redirect then, there is no consensus to redirect now, and I strongly doubt there will ever be a consensus to redirect in the future. Dream Focus 10:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• As you say, there's no consensus either way. You are trying to construe this as a consensus to keep, but it's just that "no concensus either way". So what on Earth is there against continuing the discussion to obtain consensus? For instance, by allowing editors that were not involved in the AfD to have a say, too? --Crusio (talk) 13:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• That's WP:gaming the system by having the exact same discussion twice, because you didn't get the results you wanted the first time around. If you contacted every single person in the discussion the first time around and asked them to discuss it here, do you believe there is any realistic chance you'd get a consensus to redirect? And if you knew you wouldn't get the results you wanted that way, you went asking for input elsewhere hoping to get people to agree with you, then you would be violating the WP:CANVASSING rule. Dream Focus 15:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• OK, time for me, too, to take that pledge, no sensible discussion being possible at present. I think the best thing will be to take this to AfD again in, say, 4 weeks, which is generally taken to be a decent amount of time, especially for an AfD that ended in a no consensus. --Crusio (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably no need for AfD, when this is potentially more about a redirect. Above, I suggested WP:BLPN, followed by discussion, which (assuming more sourcing isn't provided) would be a better way to go. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

So you didn't get the results you wanted, so you'll try again in a few weeks and hope different people show up and want to do things your way. Dream Focus 16:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to resume the discussion about BLP1E

Please take a moment to look also at the next section, "Arbor-treeish break" EEng (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

At the end of last October, consensus was that editors should have another month or so to try to find more sources for this page. I thought it over, and decided that I wanted to allow significantly more time than that, so I have waited until now, which I believe is very fair. In the time that has passed, two sources have been added to this page. One is an external link about Boobquake, which doesn't solve anything about WP:BLP1E. The other is a news story about "Darwin on the Palouse".

My individual opinion is that there continue to be 1E issues, and that this page should be made a redirect to Boobquake. I would also be in favor of merging biographical content from here into the other page, just not in a resumé-like manner. Please understand that I say this with sincere respect for the page subject (and for the editors who have worked on the page), and I am entirely open to a BLP that passes notability in the future.

Recognizing that some other editors are likely to disagree, I think that it would be helpful to bring in some fresh eyes. I am about to start a thread at WP:BLPN#Jennifer McCreight and BLP1E, to ask for more opinions from editors familiar with BLP policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Recognizing that some other editors are likely to disagree, you want to bring in more people which might see things your way? That's what it sounds like you are saying to me. In the AFD, various editors did state she was well known for reasons other than just Boobquake. And does anyone other than you think this is a resume like? I wasn't the only one that reverted your attempt to tag it with that. Dream Focus 21:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, people do disagree. I think the evidence is clear that McCreight is now in steady demand as a speaker on atheism, and while it is no doubt true that Boobquake was the event that launched her into fame/notoriety, it is now her sharp intelligence, radical opinion and clarity as a speaker that are getting her the steady stream of invitations to talk and write at universities and conferences - one upcoming soon is Indianapolis. This is exactly the pattern I expected some months back - she has made the transition from 1E to in-demand speaker and author, and lots-of-us know her name and character rather than just the original event. The event will recede one month further into the past every month, while she is becoming steadily better known. So no, I wouldn't like to resume the discussion, I've much better things to do than keep coming back to it. Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised by the sudden response here, after so long without significant improvement of the page. Dream Focus, I'm well-accustomed to your assumptions of bad faith and your mischaracterizations. Chiswick Chap, I don't disagree with your personal opinion of her. I'm just saying that you need sources, not just your personal opinion about how to extrapolate into the future. And of course, if you don't want to resume the discussion... --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I just provided one. And while I'm not in the business of extrapolation, the present already shows a steady stream of her speaking engagements. As for discussion, I had hoped it wouldn't be necessary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a primary source. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I'm afraid as an uninvolved editor, having come here from the BLPN, this still totally screams BLP1E, the article *is* overreffed (and not too sure about the quality of a lot of those sources, suffice it to say several are featured prominently), *does* read like a résumé, doesn't establish notability in my opinion, and maybe she's making waves on the US skeptic speakers' circuit but has made no impact on this side of the Atlantic. Never even heard of Boobquake I'm afraid and I do read BBC news every day, often for more time than I should. So, a redirect would appear to be in order. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 21:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm on the same side of the pond as you, it seems, but with a different perspective. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it appears so, unless you're from Chiswick, New South Wales ;-) CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 22:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Google news archive search for the woman. [5] She had coverage before Boobquake. Some results are hidden behind paywalls. Darwin, creationism dispute continues to evolve Pay-Per-View - Journal & Courier - Feb 12, 2009 "He got the ball rolling in that department," said Jennifer McCreight, a Purdue University biology major. "I think one of the reasons scientists respect him ... Lot of results to sort through. Dream Focus 22:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
• Also arriving from BLPN: I see this one as 1E as well. Having speaking engagements does not contribute to notability, in my view, unless perhaps they are part of a notable series of some sort. I'd say it should be merged. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• I also came here from WP:BLPN. I agree with the Captain; it's very much 1E. I'd take particular issue with the last bits that say she was "featured in" this and that, or was a guest on something else. There ought to be some indication of why the information is noteworthy, as opposed to trivial, along with a third party cite that actually addresses the topic. If there's nothing to say about her appearance as a guest, I don't understand why it's worth mentioning in an encyclopedic BLP. It also seems very likely to me what she's talking or writing about is the actual focus, and her presence is incidental or collateral to the 1E. A chapter in a book that garnered a single passing third party mention? Really? JFHJr (㊟) 00:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Another BLPNer chiming in: Have to disagree, she's a notable enough author and activist to pass the bar, in my opinion. Gamaliel (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

About "Another BLPNer", actually, you commented in the AfD (linked above). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• You are right, I did and I'd forgotten that. But I did reach this current discussion through BLPN; I don't even watchlist this article. Gamaliel (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, and thanks for taking the time to comment. But, instead of simply stating that you feel that she is notable enough, would you be able to refute the arguments about 1E made by others here? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure what to say. It is a borderline case. Either you feel that her publications and prominence are sufficient, or you don't, I guess. Gamaliel (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Uninvolved admin referred here from BLPN. This is a BLP1E violation for sure, and should redirect to Boobquake. The page looks like a mad science experiment in oversourcing, but there's no getting around the core issue. I might have been distracted by the picture, though. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 02:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbor-treeish break

Just as a starting point for specific discussion, and not because my summary is soooo valuable... Some may recall that I landed here about six months ago to help with a specific content issue (not notability) and, without knowing there was an AfD underway already, wondered out loud where the notability was for this subject. My analysis at the time is as shown below; I haven't tried to update it for whatever changes there have been to the article since.

I invite people to conform the list to the article's current contents, and comment on my further-down commentary on that list. Oh, yes. I think it would be helpful, if someone has a notabiliy-enhancing source, to actually add it to the article with a short quote (or at least text paraphrase) so we can all see it easily -- or accumulate them in a list here on Talk. Also, I mentioned in item 8 that I wasn't able to access the More piece -- can anyone tell us what it says?

EEng (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Tell me if this list isn't a fair boiling down of the article:

• 1. graduated from...pursuing Ph.D.
• 2. attributes her activism to
• 3. had academic work published in...chapter was published in...Selected publications (listing 3)
• 4. cofounded society at Purdue...joined the board of the Secular Student Alliance.
• 5. received an American Society of Mammalogists Undergraduate Award
• 6. has given talks at a number of events...on the speakers bureau...scheduled to appear at
• 7. known for her activism in atheism, skepticism and feminism.
• 8. has been a guest on a few podcasts...has been featured in More's What the New Feminists Look Like and by Dan Savage in Slog.
• 9. started Boobquake

My take on the notability value of the above:

• 1-4. This is stuff you'd include once it's decided to have an article, but itself has no notability value at all. Being published in a notable journal (or a chapter in a notable book) doesn't make you notable unless your paper or your chapter is specifically the subject of significant, independent coverage in reliable sources etc etc and so on and so forth.
• 5. undergrad awards have no value unless extremely exceptional in some way, but I can't think of any examples -- I'm pretty sure even Rhodes Scholars aren't considered notable (for that, anyway)
• 6. Unless the talks themselves were the subject of significant, independent coverage (significant reaction, caused a stir commented on by several others) they have no notability value, and I don't see any such coverage other than, perhaps, with respect to Boobquake (see below)
• 7 is a claim to notability, but isn't evidence of it -- the source cited for this statement makes only two passing mentions of McCreight (in a 3000-word piece):

Though atheist thinkers and bloggers like Ophelia Benson and Jen McCreight summarily stepped up to counter Shores with lists of prominent female atheists – science writer Natalie Angier, author and blogger Greta Christina, comedians Kathy Griffin and Julia Sweeney – the ensuing pileup of names only brought the issues identified by Shores' post into sharper relief....And if the work of women like Hecht, Jacoby, McCreight and Gaylor indicates anything, it's that there's a need for atheist voices from all genders and sexes to – very rationally – make themselves heard.

That's not signficant coverage.

• 8. The Savage piece is just one paragraph. I can't access the More piece.
• 9. There's no question Boobquake is notable, and it has its own article (to which McC. is central, obviously). Whether her creation of it -- aha! so in a way she is a creationist! -- adds to her personal notability would need to be discussed.

• My opinion is that it is still squarely BLP1E. The accompanying blurb to the photoshoot in More (see panel 5 of 15) is mostly about Boobquake. (The ["Shop the Shoot" does nothing to establish notability.)Novangelis (talk) 03:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Replying to EENg, no surprise, of course, but I agree with your analysis. I figured that editors who were in this discussion back in October have been aware that those of us with 1E concerns were giving them some time to address those issues, but it seems to me that no progress has been made, nor is there a convincing case that progress is going to be made now (but, please, prove me wrong!). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I have a picture being uploaded by a photographer. Sgerbic (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Next steps?

It seems to me that there has been an adequate amount of time for this discussion, and that the discussion has run its course. In my opinion, a clear consensus has emerged that this page should be merged into and made a redirect to Boobquake. However, in deference to editors who may still disagree, I don't want to act on it unilaterally, without agreement to do so. It would be fine with me to continue the discussion longer, or to ask an uninvolved administrator to review the discussion and determine the consensus. Thoughts? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I was geetting ready to formally suggest a merge myself. Others' thoughts? EEng (talk) 05:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

This has already been hanging for a while now, and apparently you gave it a few months or so for people to 'ref up' the article to prove that it went beyond BLP1E, I say 'merge and redirect', the objections seem to have no substance and several uninvolved editors (myself included) came over from the BLPN to weigh in, with the same conclusion. Go for it. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Damn and I just managed to find get the JREF photographer to upload a picture of her at TAM9 to add to this page. I suppose I might be able to add it to the Boobquake merge? Sgerbic (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

About the photo, not a big deal to me, so sure you could add it to Boobquake. About the redirect, I'm pleasantly relieved not to be met with a storm of angry replies. I'm going to wait another few days in case anyone with a differing view wants to weigh in. If and when we do decide to go ahead with the redirect and merge, I want it to be agreed in advance that we have consensus, so that it doesn't get met with a reversion as it did the previous time. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a very reasonable idea. I support the merge/redirect as well as giving editors a while to notice and give input. JFHJr (㊟) 22:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that a very generous amount of time has passed, and it is clear what the consensus is. I have just merged what I think is a significant amount of content from here into Boobquake, and I am now going to make the redirect. I would like to suggest that editors who have participated in this discussion please keep the redirect page on your watchlists for a while, in case any dispute arises later as to this consensus. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Atheism Plus

So, McCreight has received media attention for starting Atheism+ / Atheism Plus. See:

• Lee, Adam (2012-10-06). "Atheism's growing pains". Salon. Retrieved 2012-10-06.
• Toth, Katie (2012-09-20). "Atheist Schism?". Religion Dispatches. Retrieved 2012-10-06.

Does this take her out of the realm of BLP1E in your opinions? Disavian (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm favorably inclined, but let's give it a little time to incubate. The Salon article is 9 hours old, but contains a quote I like: "Until then, she had been best known for 'Boobquake,'...". If this is the tip of a flood of coverage on Atheism Plus (the full bibliography of which you have provided), then we won't need to guess. It's not that urgent if, ultimately, the article is going the read, "Her abandoned blog triggered the short-lived Atheism Plus meme." Novangelis (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I figured I'd put the sources here either way so that I could find them later. Disavian (talk) 01:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll add one more. I think this is getting pretty close to demonstrating that this is not too fleeting (if it isn't already there).

• Jones, Nelson (2012-08-23). "Atheism+: the new New Atheists". New Statesman. Retrieved 2012-10-07.

Opinions, anyone else?Novangelis (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

At the moment, Atheism Plus is still a red link. It might well make sense to start by making it a section under New Atheism, as a reaction to that. One could also add something about it to the page on Boobquake. I tend to share Novangelis's preference for giving the matter a little more time to incubate, and I'd be more comfortable waiting until we are sure that Atheism Plus is accepted by the editors who follow atheism-related pages (who are a very opinionated bunch) as passing notability requirements. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's another:

• Cheadle, Harry (2012-10-25). "Atheism - Sexism = Atheism+". Vice. Retrieved 2012-10-25.

Disavian (talk) 04:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Breadth of coverage is getting there, as is durability.

• Humphries, Joe (2012-10-26). "Is there a new face of atheism?". The Irish Times. Retrieved 2012-10-26.

Novangelis (talk) 11:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

This is probably telling everyone what you already know, but I figure I might as well point it out, just to be on the safe side. When the time comes for a bio page, as I expect it will, please be sure to frame all of it in terms of her work regarding atheism, skepticism, and feminism, and not in terms of her status as a scientist. A brief biographical summary is, of course, fine, but a list of scientific publications, etc., would be WP:UNDUE. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it makes most sense to just go back to the last revision and add content from there. It's already the focus of the article. If you really object to the selected publications section, those will work just fine as references in the education section. Disavian (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh well, I guess it wasn't so obvious. I strongly disagree. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)