Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piper Harron

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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piper Harron[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)

This is an autobiography by a postdoc who has only written one published paper and appears in just a few blog posts. Being a postdoc and having blog coverage are not real notability for a scientist. 12.88.178.218 (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination of behalf of IP editor. Above text is copied from article talk page. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 03:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 04:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 04:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete she clearly fails WP:NPROF with a two published papers in GS (the first of which has a respectable 25 citations), but she also seems to have had some impact through advocacy. However to fulfill WP:GNG with her advocacy she would need more than a few blog posts and the fact that she wrote her thesis with lay people in mind. I dont see a wider reception of her thesis in the general press except the Scientific American blog which is still a blog. --hroest 15:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The contributor who started this article was in my course and is not the subject of this biography nor are they closely connected to the subject. I'm going to remove that tag from the article to avoid confusion. Will (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Certainly doesn't meet WP:NPROF, I'm not convinced "Mathematically Gifted and Black Honoree" is sufficiently notable. Seems to be far WP:TOOSOON. More generally, there is some coverage, but I'm not convinced it's sufficient to meet WP:GNG, though I could be convinced otherwise if more sources are found. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She doesn't meet WP:NPROF, but she's notable per WP:BASIC. She's received significant coverage in The Hindu (Desikan; 2016), The Female Artist in Academia (Kamanos; 2019), and Mathematical Outreach (Rosario; 2019), and her book / thesis has been reviewed in MAA Focus (Salerno; 2019). There's some additional significant coverage in right-wing sources like The Daily Caller and Breitbart News, but I don't consider those particularly reliable. pburka (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- On re-reviewing the Rosario reference, I realized that it's not significant coverage, so please accept "Re-imagining Doctoral Writings as Emergent Open Systems" (Molinari; 2021) in its place. pburka (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPROF, don't see any significant coverage. 195.50.217.92 (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Clearly non-notable as an academic, and fails the GNG, as the only quasi reliable source (interview) I could find was the article on The Hindu. PK650 (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - interestingly, I'm inclined to think that either BASIC or even AUTHOR could apply here, in the way that her thesis is being review somewhat more akin to a book that as a regular academic paper. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - thanks to pburka for their work on identifying sources. I think there is just enough in terms of independent coverage for a keep. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPROF, WP:BASIC, and WP:NAUTHOR. The sources are mainly interviews which do not display the level of independence necessary to establish SIGCOV, or are from non-notable institutions or think tanks with an agenda which is suspect for proving notability in an encyclopedia. Some of them are institutions with direct professional ties to Piper Harron. Ultimately, fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She doesn't meet WP:NPROF.All sources are majorly interview no independent sources— Trap133 (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2021 (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.