Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Wilson (scientist)

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. RL0919 (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Wilson (scientist)[edit]

[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)

Fails WP:NACADEMIC Collaboratio (talk) 10:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is currently in very sad shape (easily a BLPPROD if the inappropriate inline links are removed), and I don't have time to clean it up myself. But searching Google Scholar for author:kate-wilson finds heavily-cited publications that look like hers, leading with a single-authored paper "Preparation of genomic DNA from bacteria" with nearly 2000 citations. So if the article reaches an acceptably cleaned up state, she may well pass WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this is a good example of article content not determining notability - David Eppstein has showed there are reliable sources that would enable her to meet WP:PROF. I agree though that the article is in a poor state and needs fixing. Bookscale (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: her LinkedIn page shows she's just taken up post July 2019 as "Executive Director, Climate Change and Sustainability at NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment", I've converted one of the inline links into a proper ref which gives a biog profile, altogether appears to be notable. Pity that the umpteen editors who've tagged it etc over the years didn't actually stop by to improve it at all, but hey that's Wikipedia for you! Note that there's another Australian academic Kate Wilson with whom not to confuse her. PamD 12:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, assuming someone can find and add more citations. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have added two books and a primary source reference. Her actual training is as a Molecular Biologist and a Marine Scientist (I added that to the into). I see that her study of bacteria is applicable to agriculture and her work is referenced in several books so that the subject meets the criteria for WP:PROF#C1. I am inclined to Keep. The article was sourced entirely with a primary source, howeverWP:NOTCLEANUP, and WP:RS exists as pointed out by other editors in this thread. Wm335td (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the improvements made above, it looks like she meets notability requirements. PohranicniStraze (talk) 01:34, 9 August 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.