Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concha Gómez

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. (non-admin closure) InvalidOS talk 13:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concha Gómez

[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)

While accomplished, doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOLAR. I can't find any citation count, and she doesn't appear to meet any of the other criteria for NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. As a community college instructor, she is unlikely to pass WP:PROF, and I don't think she does. However, in-depth coverage in the sources from Science and Mashable show a pass of WP:GNG instead. Because the stories are so far apart in time (from 2005 and 2018), there is no issue with BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG, though probably not WP:PROF. XOR'easter (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes WP:GNG; some coverage such as this will be under "Concetta" rather than "Concha". PamD 09:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree that the Science article is definitely in-depth, but the Mashable article I did not think was enough significant coverage. A before turned up some mentions, but the only other in-depth piece I could come up with was a Univ of Wisconsin student newspaper piece. The example PamD gives is actually a press release for a conference, and I don't think those count towards notability. I didn't check under Concetta Gomez, but a News search returned 0 hits. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per David Eppstein -- agree with others that she doesn't pass WP:PROF, but the Science piece is very solid and should be enough with the additional sources available. --JBL (talk) 09:18, 11 April 2019 (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.