Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sherilynn Black

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. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sherilynn Black

[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)

As far as I can tell, fails WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC. Subject is an assistant professor with very few scientific publications. There are a few Duke articles that mention her, and I also found a Science article where she was quoted in 2023 (https://www.science.org/content/article/women-black-researchers-less-likely-hold-multiple-nih-grants) but I think it fails to rise to level of significant coverage. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Medicine, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think there's an WP:NPROF pass — the subject is an assistant professor with very few citations and no major fellowships or academic awards. Their primary role seems to be as a mid-level university administrator, particularly in diversity initiatives, where they don't seem to have attracted the kind of secondary coverage necessary to meet WP:ANYBIO. MCE89 (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. She clearly does not pass WP:PROF: she was hired as director of biomedical graduate diversity, not as a scholar, and too low of an administrative position (not head of entire university) to achieve automatic notability, remains an assistant professor, and does not have the citation record or awards to rise above the default assumption that assistant professors usually are not notable. The only case for notability appears to be through WP:GNG and in-depth coverage of her in independent reliable sources. Among the sources in the nominated version, the Carleton source [1] is on a source that hosts self-written bios for its community members. [2]-[6], [9]-[16], [18], [19], and [22] are from Duke (not independent). [7] (AAAS "programs combat bias") quotes her but has no in-depth coverage of her. [8] and [17] (NIH "Environmental factor") are deadlinks available through archive.org; the first one again quotes her with little in-depth coverage of her and the second merely mentions that she once gave a talk. [21] (AAMC) is a listing of committee members that maybe once named her but now doesn't. [23] (NAS) is another deadlink available through archive.org; it has a paragraph about her as a project participant, in a context that strongly suggests that it is a self-written profile rather than independent material someone else has written or vetted. So I don't think any of the current sources is good enough to provide notability. This NORDP 2022 speaker profile looks better, giving in-depth coverage of her and appearing to be written and published independently of her. This JBHE story and This WIA Report piece are independent and reliable but merely announce a new post for Black with no depth of coverage. This Chronicle of Higher Education story and this Diverse story are much like references [7] and [8], stories that quote Black and go into detail about the work of the office she runs but not about her. So while there is much better coverage out there than in our article I don't think it quite meets our standards for WP:GNG. If there were another piece as in-depth as the NORDP 2022 profile, though, I could be persuaded to change to a weak keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I found this article in NIH Record [1], and there is some coverage in Newspapers.com from when she was at high school, including this [2] that gives her parents' names and that she received a Morehead Scholarship. (She also won 3 other scholarships in 1997: a Black Opal Achiever Award worth $2000, a Target All-Around scholarship ($1000) and a Tylenol scholarship ($1000). No, they don't contribute to notability, but she certainly sounds like she was achieving a lot in the community as well as academically.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I believe passes WP:GNG with NORDP2022 speaker profile and Chronicle of Higher Education articles noted above by David Eppstein. Both are independent of the subject and go into detail about her career as a researcher and administrator. The Chronicle of Higher Education article (version from Proquest) seems the most extensive and she's mentioned throughout it. The NIH Record article from 2018 noted by RebeccaGreen is another independent reliable source as well as the newspaper article which has some details about subject's high school activities. All of these now have been added to the Wikipedia article. Nnev66 (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep / withdraw. The article as it stands now has been been greatly improved by: Nnev66's editing, David Eppstein's source analysis, and Rebecca Green's find of newspaper coverage on the subject (which I did not discover in my [BEFORE]). I do think it's on the very edge of possible GNG based on secondary sources available, but I would rather include versus delete if near a gray area:) InsomniaOpossum (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2025 (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.