Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex DiBranco

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alex DiBranco

[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)

Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regular academic without doing anything significant, possibly pursuing Doctorate as it appears from this source. Fails to pass WP:NACADEMIC.Chirota (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
weak Delete fails WP:NPROF. she has written ~~two books~~ one book chapter and a paper that have no citations so far on GS and no reviews on JSTOR. So far notability it not evident, her other publications are for a think tank and not an academic journal and this website describes her as a PhD candidate. However, she is mentioned in 20+ news segments including reputable newspapers (Chicago Tribune, Guardian etc), however none of them are about her but interviews about her work / current events so I would say she still fails WP:GNG at this point. --hroest 18:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With only single-digit numbers of publications and numbers of citations per publication in Google Scholar, her citation record is not enough for WP:PROF#C1. I don't know what the "two books" mentioned above might be (her Yale profile lists only shorter selected publications) but with no book reviews there is no case for WP:AUTHOR. And there seems no other claim to notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, I fixed that above. She did write a book chapter and a paper according to GS. --hroest 19:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too few citations to pass WP:NPROF, and the occasional press interview is inadequate to meet the GNG. Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Normally I avoid disciplines that aren't well-suited to Scopus citation metrics, but this case was clear enough from just a brief glance at her GS cites and (lack of) JSTOR hits. Way, way too soon. JoelleJay (talk) 06:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is too soon for NPROF, and she doesn't meet GNG.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as others have said. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:06, 19 April 2021 (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.