Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Vie

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Vie[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be non-notable; searches failed to turn up coverage in reliable independent sources that establish notability under WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Her "Digital divide 2.0" is very well cited (183 citations on Google scholar, very high for humanities) but it's not enough by itself and beyond it we have no evidence for passing any of the WP:PROF criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Off to a good start, as judged by GS citations, but far WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as trivial school positions and there's nothing at all to suggest this one would be taken differently, listed information is not suggesting anything better at all. SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 9 October 2016 (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.