Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Colclough

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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Colclough

[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)

Not notable academic. Fails GNG; WP:NACADEMIC. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 15:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before I cut it down, there was enough promotion going on here for me to wonder if this is some kind of paid or blatantly promotional editing. I removed something like nine external links in the body of the article. At the moment, I have to go with delete as the article is entirely made up of biography pages and has no RS coverage. Ping me if four independent and in-depth sources get added to the article.Possibly (talk) 04:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. FYI This article is totally unpaid and was created as a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/AI Ethics, focusing to increase the representation of women in AI ethics field in Wikipedia. Instead to delete, I would suggest to help to improve it. Dr.Colclough is a worldwide recoglized AI Ethics expert.Volha 15 December 2020
- As far as I can see, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/AI Ethics is not actually a multi-person project, but just you making yourself look like a project. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  From the list of articles created by the 1-person WikiProject, Aleksandra Mojsilovic is the only one where notability looks likely to me (assuming the IEEE fellow can be properly referenced). Maria Axente is currently up elsewhere at AfD, and many of the other articles likely should be. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~KEEP: meets NACADEMIC The Ace in Spades (talk) 11:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)~~ — The Ace in Spades (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). [reply]
Delete. She has ~~one paper with a modest number of citations, but~~ not enough impact apparent for WP:NPROF C1. I see no signs of the other NPROF criteria, nor other signs of notability. Looks WP:TOOSOON for this 2012 PhD. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
... and the one paper I saw with moderate citations was actually from another author. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A different person, Christopher Colclough, has heavy citations published under the name "C. Colclough", making it difficult to find the subject's contributions in Google Scholar, but searching for author:cj-colclough appears to find hers only. If that is accurate, she has only single-digit citation counts, far below the standard for WP:PROF#C1. And we have no evidence of GNG-level notability through in-depth coverage of her in multiple independent published sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - I fixed a couple of typos. No opinion yet on the substance. Bearian (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of impact on world of scholarship that would pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:49, 20 December 2020 (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.