Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amelia McNamara

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. Apparently WP:TOOSOON for notability under either WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. RL0919 (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia McNamara

[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)

I appreciate User:Jesswade88's hard work on biographical articles on scientists, most of which are clearly notable. But an assistant professor with an h-index of 4 is unlikely to meet WP:NPROF yet. I don't see a WP:GNG case either. Haukur (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Haukur (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Haukur (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Haukur (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur with nominator. I don't see how she passes any of the NPROF criteria. Per my BEFORE, she doesn't pass GNG. Many of the sources in the article are not independent of the subject (i.e. authored by the subject, interview with the subject, profile of the subject probably written by the subject, etc.). Icewhiz (talk) 12:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I really do wish that early career researchers were notable; but, per Icewhizz. ——SerialNumber54129 12:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that it's WP:TOOSOON for her to pass WP:PROF. The AmStat News profile is a reliably published in-depth independent source about her, contributing towards WP:GNG (ignore the "blog" in its link; it's the edited newsletter of a major statistical society, and this is a column they publish about members whose biographies they want to highlight, not just a profile available to all members). But it's only one source, and we need multiple sources like that for GNG notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I realise that she McNamara is early in her career from a h-index/ publishing perspective; but from a science communication/education perspective, particularly in statistics, she has already accomplished a lot. This is very hard to evidence; coverage is in invited seminars/ keynotes rather than awards/ on the news. Her work in data visualisation and statistics education should meet criteria 4. Jesswade88 (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Too soon. An early career scholar who is yet to accumulate enough achievements to pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Toosoon. Agricola44 (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Improve I feel like her work with UCLA's Mobilize project can meet criteria 4 and possibly criteria 1 depending on her level of involvement. It's tricky to write dataviz articles b/c a lot of the work is behind the scenes and doesn't get major media mentions. I'll look into it. Jessamyn (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Falls well short of NPROF and GNG. The article creator herself states above that the subject's notability "is very hard to evidence", yet we should only base AfD decisions on what is in reliable sources. Edwardx (talk) 10:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails to meet GNG standards. The subject might become enough notable later. Then an article dedicated to it would be good. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article has been significantly improved and expanded since this discussion started and now has 24 references from a wide range of reliable sources. John Cummings (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you lay out which additions in particular add most to the case for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? Haukur (talk) 22:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete My search of Google scholar and search for sources didn't show anything that meets WP:NPROF or that the GNG is met.Sandals1 (talk) 02:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately. The AmStat reference is acceptable to me, but it is hard to find any other reliable sources for GNG. For specific academic notability, I think it is a bit too soon as an early career academic.--DreamLinker (talk) 20:37, 4 September 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.