Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Alesia 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. RL0919 (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Alesia Johnson[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)

It is too soon for this young academic. She has some early career awards but few citations. I can't find any other independent coverage. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant citations to academic work on GS. No pass of WP:Prof. No independent sources: WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
@Xxanthippe: there are two or three well cited works shown here on GS ? Atlantic306 (talk) 23:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that is a much better source. But with an h-index of only 13 she is well below the standard expected for this very highly cited field: again WP:Too soon. Maybe in five years time. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Weak delete. Her citation record looks on-track for a successful academic career, but with the relatively low h-index and only one triple-digit citation count I think it's still a bit WP:TOOSOON for WP:PROF#C1, and the article doesn't suggest any other form of notability e.g. for her advocacy activities. Doing fieldwork and participating in community outreach activities are laudable but not (without coverage in independent reliable sources) notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per David Eppstein. Sadly, in academia women have to publish twice as much, and serve on committees, in order to get tenure, especially in the sciences where field work is necessary. Bearian (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet and of the conditions for WP:NACADEMIC, Alex-h (talk) 10:14, 17 October 2019 (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.