Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashanté Reese

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ashanté Reese[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)

While accomplished, not enough in-depth coverage to show she passes WP:GNG, her positions and citation count don't qualify her under WP:NSCHOLAR. The one in-depth reference (the Epicurious article) is an interview, and thereby can't be used for notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon for this young assistant professor. Article written in good faith by a student editor without knowing about WP:NPROF. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I share the sentiment expressed above that this article was written in good faith but just too soon. An interview can contribute to notability, since being interviewed by someone other than your own organization can indicate that you are seen as an expert in your subject. (See WP:IV § Notability.) However, I don't think one interview is enough to satisfy WP:PROF#C7. In addition, there's an article in the WSJ that I don't currently have access to read. (The news search that turned that up also found this post by the ACLU.) XOR'easter (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines. Interviews do not contribute to notability, what is needed is indepdent, 3rd party sources, and interviews are inherently not such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass NPROF and does not pass GNG. Natureium (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With only 33 cites on GS (more than 1000 would be expected) fails WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2018 (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.