Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Meir

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 no consensus to delete this material. There is a consensus that the article is promotional, and it should be rewritten accordingly. Equallycorrect challenges Ms Meir's notability, but Gobonobo answers that by linking to reliable sources that have noted her. Phazarkley asserts that the sources are all "connected to her"; this is simply inaccurate. Agricola44 attacks the sources, describing one of them as "obscure" and "not mainstream", another as "a peripheral mention" and another as "PR material". This is helpful but falls short of the detailed and specific analysis of the sources that would be necessary to achieve deletion in the face of the sources and !votes provided.

The "keep" side also fails to make its case. Gobonobo's more specific discussion of the sources is helpful but not conclusive. I considered relisting again, but I am prevented by the third paragraph of WP:RELIST, so the only close available is no consensus. In the circumstances WP:NPASR applies. NAC by—S Marshall T/C 16:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Jessica Meir

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not meet the criteria for Notability. While this entry is very well written and compelte, the significance of author's scientific credentials are not high enough to warrent this page. Author does not appear in major scientific journals (Science/Nature) and a quick scifinder search reveals a decent but not remarkable publication record. Equallycorrect (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article was created by someone who clearly knows what their doing, but it's littered with un-RS material. An article this well-written that only receives 100 views a month seems a little strange to me. At the very least, this article is excessively promotional and should be trimmed down to its encyclopedic content, though I think a full deletion would be taking it too far. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination seems to make a case for how this article may not meet WP:SCHOLAR, but the number of write-ups in popular science sources such as US News & World Report, ScienceNews, LiveScience and Globe & Mail suggest that Meir is worthy of notice anyway, passing WP:BIO. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 22:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Subject does not pass WP:Prof. Only chance is WP:GNG. Article is overly promotional in tone and reads as if written by a PR hack. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Does not pass WP:Prof, as others have mentioned, but the number of citations and amount of coverage is sufficient for GNG. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There seems to be a consensus that Meir does not pass WP:PROF. I would concur, adding that WoS shows an h-index of 8 and no highly-cited papers, which is about what one would expect for an early-in-career academic. I think WP:GNG is problematic too because most of sources are actually either web-pages or non-published docs, e.g. NASA and NSF PR. The one exception is the US News piece, but this still falls short of the "multiple sources" commonly expected. If the article is kept, it will have to be overhauled to remove WP:OR, which actually comprises most of the article. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Doesn't the Globe and Mail piece constitute a second independent source? I also think that there is an amount of coverage beyond which semi-connected sources become sufficient to add weight to the independent sources. Yes, she has NSF grants, yes, she's worked for NASA, but the extensive coverage of her work goes beyond what would normally be expected in highlighting a funded researcher. Many of the sources are connected to her (as Phazakerley points out below), but it's not the number that are connected that determines GNG, but the number that are independent; if there's too much weight to connected sources, that can be trimmed in cleanup (though most support uncontroversial facts in the article, not assertions of importance, and thus most seem harmless if the article is kept). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 05:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see below, Agricola44 (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Sources seem PR-hypey. It's hard to find any truly independent sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Wouldn't the US News and Globe and Mail articles about her count as independent sources? (as do ScienceDaily and some of the other citations, though they're not in depth enough to satistfy GNG on their own). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 05:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per long list of popular press mentions. It is very PR-hypey, but that is something better fixed by editing than by deletion. Ray^Talk 22:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply fails WP:GNG, the sources about her are almost all connected to her.--Phazakerley (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notice of this AfD should be placed in the Birds, Oceans, Spaceflight and Women scientists projects, to ensure a more thorough discussion, especially from editors in those projects. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Easily passes WP:GNG which supersedes WP:PROF. PROF enables important researchers and educational leaders who can't garner editorial coverage. She has plenty, and with so many references, I feel the author earns some latitude to make a slightly glowing, PR style article. USN&WR, ScienceNews and Globe & Mail are certainly not connected to her. She belongs in WP.--Nixie9 (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think one must look at broader context. For example, "Science News for Kids" is an obscure web-zine from a non-profit orginzation, not a mainstream publication. The Globe & Mail article is actually about Adventurers and Scientists for Conservation and some of the folks involved, like Sam Wasser (who certainly should have a WP article). Meir is only peripherally mentioned. Public relations material (like the NASA web pages), even boatloads of it (which constitutes much of the remainder of sources), has never counted significantly toward notability because of its promotional and ephemeral nature. Agricola44 (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2012 (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.