Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosella Cappella Zielinski

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. Daniel (talk) 09:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rosella Cappella Zielinski

[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)

The subject does not appear to meet WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. Current h-index is 4. Not able to find independent sources where she received significant coverage. Hitro talk 06:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF for this 2012 PhD and assistant professor with a modest number of citations. WP:NAUTHOR is unlikely (at best) with just 1 book (although a redirect to an article about the book might be reasonable, if enough reviews can be found). No sign of GNG. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Far WP:Too soon for this tyro scholar with a tiny citation record. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Agreed far WP:TOOSOON. Her current h-index is 4. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. --Kemalcan (talk) 11:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, doesn't pass WP:NPROF. SailingInABathTub (talk) 12:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep almost WP:TOOSOON, clearly she is on an upward trajectory with citations but she also won an award for her book from American Political Science Association and she has a decent number of citations in a low citation field. Also she has been cited in the general press [1] [2] [3] [4]. Taken all this weak evidence by itself but looking at it in totality, I think this is enough for a keep. --hroest 14:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Crystal ball. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Certainly doesn't pass WP:NPROF, and I'm not convinced passes WP:GNG either. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, wouldn't meet WP:AUTHOR. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not enough for WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR yet. If we wait until she has a second book, and then wait another couple years for its reviews to roll in, she should eventually pass WP:AUTHOR, but she doesn't now, and we can't rely on hope alone. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I Googled her and found more sources. I have improved the article quiet a bit from its first incarnation by adding some of these new sources and more info. I also found a couple of in-depth articles here and here. Prior voters should revisit this and recast their votes. Peter303x (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources added are too slender to make me change my mind. Try again in ten years. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:41, 17 March 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.