Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasmine Johnson

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. postdlf (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine Johnson[edit]

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

I've tried to find some way to get this past WP:GNG, but cannot find it. Article topic is an assistant professor without many (any) distinguished publications (an article in GAWKER). I am at a loss to find anything written about the professor. The article itself does not make any claims that the asst professor is notable, per se, so could be CSD A7, but failed the review. Also failed PROD as article creator took down the tag. —Gaff ^ταλκ 02:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 02:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 02:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PROF and WP:BIO. There is some coverage of her in student newspapers [1] [2] but I don't think these are reliable enough to make her notable. Everymorning talk to me 02:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Early career academic may well be notable someday, but I can find little to support notability now.ShulMaven (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fits one of the standard deletion profiles: Entry-level academic having not yet made any real impact (in this case, on the order of a dozen total citations in GS) with article having been created by SPA. Perhaps notable someday, but not now. Agricola44 (talk) 06:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 4 December 2014 (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.