Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wingdie Didi Bertrand Farmer

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 redirect to Paul Farmer. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient for a standalone article. History is under the redirect if there's merit to merging sourced information as a matter of editorial discussion. Star Mississippi 03:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wingdie Didi Bertrand Farmer

[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)

This subject does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:BIO. The independent coverage in the article is about her late husband Paul Farmer. The other references are either primary sources or not independent. My own searches didn't turn up much better, e.g. this which is still about her husband. I suggest that we merge anything relevant into Paul Farmer. SmartSE (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Medicine, Rwanda, and Haiti. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I found more if I searched for "Didi Bertrand Farmer", although mostly passing mentioned. The New Yorker piece that I added was the best, and it wasn't much. However, I do think all the short bits of information could be combined and likely pass WP:BASIC. I found the article to be a bit bloated and I cut it down, some more editing and citations are needed, but I think the encyclopedia is better to have the article. CT55555(talk) 14:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CT55555: Thanks but that source is still very much about her husband, with mentions of her in passing. WP:BASIC still requires "significant" coverage in individual sources even if none of them are "substantial" but we can't use many small mentions to justify notability. SmartSE (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources all talk about her husband and mention her in passing. Nothing substantial about her found. Oaktree b (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
zero hits in Jstor, Gscholar and the NYT. I'm not seeing notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK--I was totally ready to go "per nom" and "per Oaktree b", and of course the article is almost hopelessly bloated and promotional. I see now that this came out of an educational program that I've looked at before, and unfortunately it shows the signs of unencyclopedic writing and poor evaluation of sources. And it is true that much of the references on the internets mention her "as" Farmer's wife--but I'm wondering if we're not getting too carried away by how those sources phrase it, and whether they themselves aren't just being ... eh well sexist about it. It is a fact, though, that she is the co-author on a number of publications, and is acknowledged as such here, for instance. It's really too thin for me right now to vote "keep", but I hope that we won't too easily apply the old "notability is not inherited", and that we will base our arguments in the sourcing--or, in this case, the lack thereof. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, lack of sourcing is an issue. I don't doubt the sexist thing, it's gender bias. But we can't ignore notability rules. I'd give it a pass if we had one semi-decent source about her, I just can't find any. It's all about the husband and they just mention her. I'd perhaps give a weak keep if we had an interview or something about her. Oaktree b (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article seems to have been part of this course at Pennsylvania, and was approved at AfC and moved to mainspace by @Breamk:, the instructor on the course. @Brianda (Wiki Ed), Ian (Wiki Ed), and Helaine (Wiki Ed): all have their names on the course so might want to comment. PamD 13:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD I don't think there's much I should add here - while I personally like seeing student work succeed, I think it would be a potential COI for me to get involved with this account in a deletion debate except to provide helpful information about student editing. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian (Wiki Ed) I suppose you and the other Wiki Ed people might have thoughts on whether the instructor and their students are contributing usefully to the encyclopedia, or wasting their own and other people's time by creating articles on non-notable topics? Are the topics for courses like this chosen carefully enough, so that students don't risk seeing their hard work deleted (which would probably deter them from ever editing again, too). PamD 15:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps there should be an article about Women and Girls Initiative(this), if it is notable, and this article could redirect there as its founder? PamD 13:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on her publications in G Scholar. She isn't an academic in the traditional sense but she has collaborated on quite a few research papers. None of them are her alone, but that can be attributed to the nature of the research, and the generosity of the group of authors. Note that I had better search results with "Didi Farmer", dropping the "Wingdie" part, which does not appear in the publications I found. Lamona (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lamona: That looks to be an h-index of 7 which is a long way from meeting WP:PROF. SmartSE (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartse:, as I said, she is not an academic, and I wouldn't judge her on Western academic criteria. The articles are evidence of on-the-ground social research, done outside of academe. We don't have policies for that realm, but my gut is that getting published in BML and Lancet without any of the support of an academic position is worth quite a bit. Lamona (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Paul Farmer. Certainly doesn't meet WP:NSCHOLAR. And does not meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, rename as Didi Bertrand or Didi Bertrand Farmer. PamD 16:43, 23 February 2023 (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.