Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Moran (scientist)

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. The article can be restored if an editor comes forward with an argument that the subject meets the

GNG. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Elizabeth Moran (scientist)

[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 don't think the subject meets

WP: N. The current sources do not establish notability. They either contain substantial content from the subject herself or don't contain substantial coverage. Here is an archived version of the leading scientists link that's currently broken in the article. I couldn't find any source other than this one that could possibly be used. However, I couldn't find credentials of the journalist that wrote this, and the article mostly contains quotations from the subject anyway. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Women, Ireland, and United Kingdom. Shaws username . talk . 00:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't know if FRSC qualifies for NPROF -- it seems like members of the RSC can gain fellowship by just applying after having 5 years of professional experience in chemistry. Certainly she does not qualify through academic citations. JoelleJay (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:NPROF if it only had the first of those three criteria, but I'm not so sure about the other two. -- asilvering (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The application for FRSC just says:
✓ Five years’ professional experience or evidence of contribution to the chemical sciences (If you don't have your CV to hand, you can use our template).
✓ Two referees
✓ If applying online: A credit or debit card
✓ A £100 non-refundable application fee must accompany all applications for Fellow
The FAQs also suggest that "contribution to the chemical sciences" can just mean "measurable impact on one's organization/business directions and success". JoelleJay (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. For certain FRSC does not qualify as notable, it is very different and easier to get than FRS. Being on a board at RSC is good, but by itself is not notable enough. A big problem is that her name is too common, making searches problematic. I don't find enough in a search or the article for notability. If there is then hopefully one of the creators is watching and can add. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Noted in the UK as public health scientist. Her presidency of the Association of Public Analysts, her being one of the 100 leading scientists by the UK's Science Council, serving on the Royal Society of Chemistry's [board] and as one of their 175 Faces of Chemistry all seem to me to indicate sufficient notability. (Msrasnw (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Comment: Inclusion on lists is not sufficient to establish notability. The RSC source contains almost entirely quotations from the subject herself, and the Science Council source makes little more than a passing mention of her. If she is as notable as you say, you shouldn't have any problem adding sources that actually establish her notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has been at the top of this specialisation, as per Msrasnw's three points above. Searches by name need to include "Liz", "Elizabeth" and "Watney Elizabeth". PamD 15:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am not seeing evidence of meeting NPROF, and there doesn't seem to be much in the way of IRS SIGCOV to suggest she meets GNG.

JoelleJay (talk) 22:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any possibility of a pass of
WP:GNG. I was hoping the "175 faces" source would provide significant depth of coverage of her, and was preparing to go with a weak delete on that basis (because it's only one and we need multiple in-depth sources). But that source turns out to be an interview without much depth, so I don't think it counts. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak delete and
she is right on the cusp of notability. Bearian (talk) 13:51, 7 March 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.