Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lenette Azzi-Lessing

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lenette Azzi-Lessing[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)

This BLP was recently moved from draft space by the page creator, and while the subject looks like a fine human being worthy of significant and detailed praise, the article lacks sufficient independent sources to justify inclusion in an online encyclopedia. A reasonable BEFORE doesn't find anything demonstrating the subject is any more notable than other clinical professors of social work. We see a number of Boston U sources and a Pell Center source, but these are connected directly to the employee subject. I don't see a single source applied or found which meets the standard for direct detailing in significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Please notify me if better sources are presented. I'd be happy in this case to be proven wrong. BusterD (talk) 12:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. BusterD (talk) 12:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears that GPL93 draftified this at the exact second it was nominated for deletion. Curbon7 (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Curbon7 & BusterD You are more than welcome to move it back. I draftified because this is likely a paid/COI editor who unilaterally moved as draft to the mainspace without proper review. Personally, I don't see notability so if the AfD continues my vote would be Delete. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Moved back to mainspace. I see this very much the same way as does User:GPL93. I'm still okay with a draftify outcome (the subject seems a very kind and well-respected person), but I'm likewise concerned about the apparent UPE. BusterD (talk) 12:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A possible alternative to deletion would be to redirect to a stub about the subject's book, which appears to meet WP:NBOOK with at least 3 reviews [1][2][3]. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with the redirect to the book, but doesn't that pass AUTHOR if the book has critical reviews? Oaktree b (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oaktree b, having a single marginally-notable book and little other sign of notability likely falls under WP:BLP1E. Now, the subject here does have a somewhat respectable citation record (although it doesn't look to me like a pass of WP:NPROF C1). The Angels in Adoption award appears to be given to hundreds of people per year, and I don't think it grants notability. It's possible that someone could make a combined case for notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - simply does not meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She should be validated against NACADEMIC. She has published but her h-index is very low (h8) and there is no evidence that she has accomplished anything notable in her field, at least nothing that meets those criteria. Her position at BU does not seem to be extraordinary. She is the chair of something called "Macro social work" but I fail to figure out how large this unit is that she is chairing. I doubt that makes a difference, though. Lamona (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2023 (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.