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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  20:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i am re-nominating this page for deletion and have received permission to do so from wiki admin. it was nominated for deletion once before and i have read the debate on keep or delete. i found the reasons for keeping it to be weak and unconvincing. thus, i submit it for deletion.

dr. meredith jung-en woo is a very good scholar and has authored some very good works, but nothing about her record makes her exceptional in the field of korean studies. her research, while important in its own way, is not commonly thought of as being central to the field. her books are a very fine accomplishment, but among scholars, it is not exceptional. i know of other scholars whose records would warrent a page before her, the late james palais being among them.

specifically, dr. meredith jung-en woo is not, by the academic standards of her field, a prolific writer or a central thinker. as an example, the koreanist bruce cumings (to whom she is married) has over 20 books. his contributions to the field of korean studies reshaped its issues and assumptions, particularly those surrounding the korean civil war. today, NO SCHOLAR wishing to research the korean civil war would be taken seriously unless they first addressed the arguments raised by bruce cumings. THAT is noteworthy among academics.

next, her accomplishments such as advising the US government and appearing in the new york times are neither exceptionally noteworthy or overly numerous.

i argue that for an academician to appear in wikipedia that person needs to be truely exceptional and to achievements that place him or her far above their peers and colleagues. wikipedia needs to have high standards in this area.

in short, this seems more of a "vanity" page than a page dedicated to an exceptional scholar whose ideas have reworked or reshaped scholarship in their field. as such, i ask that you reopen the debate to delete the page. Hongkyongnae 22:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As a non-paper encyclopedia, Wikipedia can afford to have broader standards for notability than traditional encyclopedias. This author has several reputably published books and is clearly regarded by several mainstream media outlets as a person to call on for views in her field. Regardless of her relative position within her field, her accomplishments considered alone are notable enough for Wikipedia. I see no evidence that the authorship of this article is motivated by vanity. By the way, James Palais does have his own article. Rohirok 01:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Firstly, the most important question one must ask per WP:PROF is this: Is this article on her verifiable? Yes, it is. Secondly, in 1996 she was appointed by President Bill Clinton to serve on the Presidential Commission on U.S.-Pacific Trade and Investment Policy. Isn't that a noteworthy job-scope? After looking through the proposed guideline of WP:PROF, I agree that the subject in question has not quite fulfilled the seven criterias. However, her dissertation was awarded the Columbia University's highest distinction. Thus she meets point number 8. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above. The fact that Hongkyongnae has written such a huge and involved deletion-reason summary that is very long on criticism of the article's subject but very light on actual Wikipedia policy citations, I have to wonder if this is not a bad-faith nomination. wikipediatrix 03:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable professor. Bradcis 04:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I get the impression one could easily find this level of notability in any university professor's profile, but there are a few things that stand out. However, I notice that much of the bio is a copy of her University of Michigan faculty profile. That seems like a problem, although I'm not knowledgeable enough in copyright law to know for sure. -- tariqabjotu 03:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Regarding First Nomination The content from the first nomination has been moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meredith Jung-En Woo (first nomination). -- tariqabjotu 06:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per User:Siva1979 --- Hong Qi Gong 06:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Siva 1979. I don't care if this was nominated in bad faith or not, the subject is well within the bounds of our notability guidelines and no real reason for deletion has been presented. RFerreira 08:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep—In this case the nominator for deletion sets a higher standard for Notability (people), than Wikipedia as a whole does (one need only participate in AfD discussions for a few weeks to recognize that). This is not a nomination for a Nobel Prize, where the standard is best in class. This is a Wikipedia article where a recognized test of notability is whether a person has sufficient external notice to ensure that they can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources. Although Dr. Meredith Jung-en Woo may not be, by the academic standards of her field, a prolific writer or a central thinker, she has accumulated a sufficient body of work and a sufficient recognition to warrant inclusion. If Wikipedia required the same standards of notability as the Encyclopædia Britannica, then we’d be the Encyclopædia Britannica; we’re a much wider body of knowledge and data; some of us think that is valuable. Williamborg (Bill) 14:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment—I appreciated Tariqabjotu linking the original debate. I note that although the nominator found "the reasons for keeping it to be weak and unconvincing", they were actually about as unanimous and strong as it gets for these AfD debates. I'd encourage the nominator not to proceed with this nomination again (and administrators to avoid wasting our Wikiresources by keeping this debate alive). If there are more worthy candidates for mention, so be it; please write articles about them! Williamborg (Bill) 14:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, meets WP:PROF, potential bad faith nomination. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 22:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems good faith to me, checked with an admin and everything WP:AGF. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am the original creator of this page. I did so to complete a dead link at her husband's, Bruce Cumings, Wikipedia page. I do not accept the argument put forward by Hongkyongnae that the page must be deleted because the subject has not made an important contribution in the area of Korean politics. Meredith Jung-En Woo's work extends beyond that narrow definition. Hongkyongnae also oddly conflates the work of a historian (Bruce Cumings) with that of a political scientist. Yes, the original page, now somewhat edited, did borrow heavily on the U Michigan political science page mentioned above. Fair-use and non-commercial use priciples seem to apply sufficiently well here and the authors there do not object to the use here. She is a prominent member of a prominent department whose visibility continues to grow. For all these reasons, this page should remain. Yosemitemac 23:37, 29 August 2006 (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.