Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erika Alden DeBenedictis

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. The keep votes are generic and not policy based, nor do they add any information that helps establish the notability of the person. The delete votes have provided high detailed reasoning as to why this is either too soon, or never to be, and why this BLP fails to pass the criteria for inclusion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erika_Alden_DeBenedictis

[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)

WP:BLP of a typical graduate student. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ACADEMIC. PulseLabel (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG (I wouldn't even say an actual claim to ACADEMIC is made) - sources either fail independent or Sig Cov Nosebagbear (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. She appears to be a grad student at MIT, WP:TOOSOON for notability through WP:PROF. There are some moderately well cited publications by E. DeBenedictis but they are by Erik P. DeBenedictis (with whom she shares a web site). She is also the author of a very recent PNAS paper; this is a significant accomplishment but not by itself enough for notability, especially because there are ten authors and she is in a middle position among them. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Needs more details and references.Germcrow (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added some more information and references. Mlvandijk (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:

Not significant coverage – a couple of lines in the context of a naming citation. Adequately covered at 23131 Debenedictis.
Not independent coverage – author is a member of the organisation that sponsored the prize.
Not significant coverage — same as 1.
Unlikely to be significant coverage – I'm not paying US$169 just to verify the citation, but considering it's a IAU reference dictionary it will likely be similar or identical to 1.
Not independent coverage – university website covering its own summer school program.
Not independent coverage – author "was the Academic Director of the program at New Mexico Tech" which DeBenedictis attended and coverage is of events during the program.
Not independent coverage – Intel press release covering science fair it sponsored.
Not significant coverage – barely a sentence about DeBenedictus winning an Intel contest.
Not independent coverage – TED profile.
Possibly unreliable coverage – Scientista seems more of a promotional organisation for female college students than a reliable media organisation.
Not independent coverage – interview.

Best sources not in article:

New York Times op-ed – not significant coverage, similar to 8 (same author).
ZDnet – not significant coverage, barely two sentences.

Overall, any significant information could be easily included in 23131 Debenedictis or Intel International Science and Engineering Fair. – Teratix ₵ 00:30, 8 May 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.