Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacy Blake-Beard

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 keep‎. Consensus lean towards keep. SIGCOV is met. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Blake-Beard[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)

Successful but I wasn't sure it was enough to meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Business, and Social science. Bridget (talk) 10:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In this case we have both well-cited publications (WP:PROF#C1) and in-depth coverage specifically about her in multiple newspaper stories (WP:GNG). The fact that someone tag-bombed this article 14 years ago is not an actual deletion rationale. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm not seeing a C1 pass; her Scopus citations look to be right around the average among her coauthors. However, if she's received enough newspaper coverage for her work that C7 or GNG is met then that's sufficient. JoelleJay (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2024 (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.