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.
No actual sources given. "Works" do not qualify as sources. Can't find anything on the net. Since this was a "Wikibomb2014" product, recommend draftify for more work.
Reventtalk 15:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. Does not meet
WP:PROF or
WP:GNG, I'm afraid (and that's probably true for most of the
Wikibomb2014 articles). Freeman's h-index is 5 by my count (being careful not to confuse her with Angela B Freeman, a US cancer researcher). There may be news coverage of Freeman's government work for
WP:PROF#C7 or
WP:GNG, but I can only find one article (
[1]). Essentially, this is an example of someone who does critically important agricultural work, but "flies under the radar" from a notability point of view. Draftifying is a waste of time, since most of the Wikibomb2014 articles were added by temporary editors, and any remaining Wikibomb2014 energy should go to articles closer to the notability borderline. --
101.117.108.126 (
talk) 00:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete as per IP editors comments. The article does not pass either
WP:PROF or
WP:GNG.
AlanS (
talk) 15:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. References have now been added - I would agree it is still borderline but I think they are just about adequate.
Deb (
talk) 09:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment - There is one source which is independent of the subject and reliable.
AlanS (
talk) 12:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. Run-of-the-mill industry scientist. Abductive (
reasoning) 03:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Weak delete. She doesn't seem to pass
WP:PROF but the profile of her in The Age goes a long way towards
WP:GNG. If there were two such sources, I could likely be persuaded to change my mind. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 04:10, 25 August 2014 (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.
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.
No actual sources given. "Works" do not qualify as sources. Can't find anything on the net. Since this was a "Wikibomb2014" product, recommend draftify for more work.
Reventtalk 15:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. Does not meet
WP:PROF or
WP:GNG, I'm afraid (and that's probably true for most of the
Wikibomb2014 articles). Freeman's h-index is 5 by my count (being careful not to confuse her with Angela B Freeman, a US cancer researcher). There may be news coverage of Freeman's government work for
WP:PROF#C7 or
WP:GNG, but I can only find one article (
[1]). Essentially, this is an example of someone who does critically important agricultural work, but "flies under the radar" from a notability point of view. Draftifying is a waste of time, since most of the Wikibomb2014 articles were added by temporary editors, and any remaining Wikibomb2014 energy should go to articles closer to the notability borderline. --
101.117.108.126 (
talk) 00:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete as per IP editors comments. The article does not pass either
WP:PROF or
WP:GNG.
AlanS (
talk) 15:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. References have now been added - I would agree it is still borderline but I think they are just about adequate.
Deb (
talk) 09:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment - There is one source which is independent of the subject and reliable.
AlanS (
talk) 12:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. Run-of-the-mill industry scientist. Abductive (
reasoning) 03:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Weak delete. She doesn't seem to pass
WP:PROF but the profile of her in The Age goes a long way towards
WP:GNG. If there were two such sources, I could likely be persuaded to change my mind. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 04:10, 25 August 2014 (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.