Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharifa Love-Rutledge

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. Black Kite (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sharifa Love-Rutledge

[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 understand that this goes against the trend, could get me exposed to false accusations of all kinds of criminal behavior, and I could have left this somebody else to deal with, however, I feel that as a new page patroller I have to nominate this for deletion. This academic, although being black and being a woman, fails

WP:GNG, currently the article in fact has zero independent reliable sources. Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hi there, thank you so much for the note and for creating a discussion as opposed to speedy deletion! I would love the chance to dispute this nomination for multiple reasons. First, she meets the criteria of an academic (ie she is a "faculty members (such as professors) at colleges or universities"). Second, I have used "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses" (from the notability page of Wiki) and thus these sources I have used to discuss her research are reliable sources. Third, Love-Rutledge has "had a substantial impact outside of academia in their academic capacity" as her work directly informed the change of guidelines in the European Food and Safety Authority Guidelines. Fourth, she was a McNair Scholar, this is a Federally awarded honor (honor at the national level). Fifth, the citations that reference the biography of her life are published on multiple institutional pages, which I have cited, and the fact that this story is written on multiple Institutional pages (even institutions she did not attend), I thought this signified it was a secondary source. I have also cited the institutions where she won awards (including her listed as one of the top 100 Black Scientists in America by CellPress), which Wikipedia says is a sufficient source for citing an award. I would love to discuss further, but I also feel that her story and contributions to science are notable enough to be shared on Wikipedia. Microglia145 (talk) 07:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will generally not respond further and let others decide on the nomination, but I want to remark that
WP:PROF does not mean that (i) all faculty members of all universities are notable (and in this case, University of Alabama is not a top university, and she is only an assistant professor); (ii) that all authors of publications in peer-review journals are notable (this would make notable suddenly hundreds of thousands of people who had contributed to some research while being for example undergraduate students and not have made any impact outside of one or two routine publications). Btw the article is clearly not eligible for speedy deletion, if you ever see a comparable article nominated for speedy or, even worse, speedy deleted on notability grounds, please let the community know at one of the noticeboards.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: doesn’t come close to WP:GNG ~~Vipulsshah (talk) 08:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)~~ SOCKSTRIKE. Britishfinance (talk) 11:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just noticed this was nominated for deletion under an hour of the article being created... Kj cheetham (talk) 08:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I was patrolling the queue of new articles. I usually do it every morning.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Only assistant prof - I'd be looking for a named chair or "Distinguished Professor" appointment. Please see
WP:TOOSOON really. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak delete Reluctantly as well. Looking at the criteria for notability of academics, options 3-8 clearly don't apply in this case. For research impact (option 1) it's hard to make the case quantitatively based on citations/h-index. Qualitatively, the discovery referenced in the current article's summary paragraph about chromium comes from a paper on which she was a middle author. I did go to the journal and downloaded the PDF to confirm it wasn't two co-first authors with asterisks. That leaves criteria 2, the award path. The most notable award listed is the McNair scholarship which is for undergraduates selected based on a combination of academic potential and coming from a disadvantaged background. I just don't think it satisfies criteria 2. MoneciousTriffid (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of
WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: I'm going to offer a comment that is meant fully in the spirit of
WP:CONSENSUS. - Astrophobe (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
It means that AfD nominators are likely to get
accused of bad faith when they nominate for deletion articles on people from underrepresented groups. Exactly as you appear to be doing now. And that the nominator hoped to pre-empt that accusation by demonstrating their good faith and by tiptoeing around the nomination rather than being more blunt, but as your long comment demonstrates it doesn't seem to have worked, because the very act of trying to be responsive to these issues is seen as problematic. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Then I apologise for that appearance. I'm happy to plainly state that I have no doubt that the nomination was raised because the nominator believes in good faith that the article does not meet
WP:GNG. - Astrophobe (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Indeed, thanks David Eppstein. There are enough people around happy to accuse me in racism and sexism, and my real name is easy to find. Fortunately I am not based in the US, but I can still can get into serious trouble if this gets spread by social media in the corresponding mode and for example picked up by mainstream media.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Probably worth including in the WikiProject Women scientists list of AfDs too? Kj cheetham (talk) 08:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but does anybody know how to do it? The article is edited exclusively by a bot.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good question... I've tagged the article's talk page with the project tag, so let's see if the bot picks that up on it's next daily run. Kj cheetham (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nowhere near passing
WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2020 (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.