Deletion of Clarice Phelps

Comment: Government organisations provide profiles of employees for promotional/outreach reasons on their websites and in internal publications. Only some of these will have clear or marginal notability; in the latter case  and/or  might apply, but the profiles themselves do not provide or necessarily even contribute to notability. Here's examples of profiles from the https://www.energy.gov/diversity/search-womenenergy-profiles US Department of Energy,  https://dod.defense.gov/News/Special-Reports/Womens-History/more-stories/ US military, https://www.army.mil/women/profiles/ US Army, https://www.epa.gov/careers/profiles-women-epa US Environmental Protection Agency, and https://books.google.com.au/books?id=I4sL5WGoxnoC US Department of the Interior. I'd give more weight to IAR if her article was key to interlinking unconnected articles as supporting pillar 1 (''heretical version: "Wikipedia is a hyperlinked encyclopedia"''), but until coverage improves this is likely to end up an orphan or close enough if she is given due weight as it's clear now that she should not appear at tennessine. With current sourcing, the only articles which provide — or are likely to provide — incoming links to her article are lists (section or full article), and she really shouldn't appear in any which state that members listed are notable. (''One of these days there is going to be someone whose article's AFD is going to achieve clear sigcov
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR||WP:NPOINTS)

Comment: The nomination is based on the idea of |notability but that is not a policy while , , OTPAPER and  are four separate policies which all indicate that we should not be deleting this page.  To consider the overall effect on the encyclopedia, consider an article which currently appears on the front page: Edward Stanley (cricketer)|Edward Stanley, who is lauded for his short playing career in which he "''scored no runs, and took no catches or wickets''".  That's an entertaining short piece and I was especially impressed by the fine mustache sported by the subject.  The article in question is somewhat different but is a worthy addition to the encyclopedia in other ways.  To delete one but not the other would be systemic bias and we're better off keeping them both
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:ATD||WP:IAR||WP:NOTPAPER||WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: From reading this discussion and the article, I do not exactly understand why this scientist is considered notable. As per the article's lead section, the main reason is that she was on a team that provided a target for the discovery of element 117. To make that entirely clear: she did not discover a chemical element and she wasn't a part of the team that made the discovery. The discoverers were those who conducted the experiment in Russia in 2009--2010 and those who later analyzed the data obtained in that experiment. She was a part of the team that provided necessary equipment for that discovery, nothing less but nothing more. While that was indeed of crucial importance for the discovery (though not a part of it), I don't see how that makes ''everybody'' involved in making the target personally notable. She was not even the leader of that group. If there ever was a person of notability gained from that alone, that would be Joseph Hamilton (I will note that he does not have a Wikipedia article for whatever reason). If that is the reason why she has an article at all (and it appears to me it is), then my judgment is that she does not pass . If there is nothing she has done that passes GNG, then the sum of what she has done does not have her pass it either (though it may be the reason for somebody to give her enough coverage that would help pass it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: please note ing on twitter - https://twitter.com/jesswade/status/1092340411664867328 for this AfD
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Canvassing (WP:CANVASS)

Comment: There is a lack of significant independent coverage.  Getting an award from the local YWCA does not help her meet any notability criteria.  As a for notability as a scientist, my search in Google Scholar found a grand total of 1 citation of papers she has authored or co-authored.  Just because she works for the government doesn't mean she can't publish papers (and she has), the only restriction is if her work is classified.  Her participation in the discovery of element 117 appears to have been very minor.  Her name does not appear in the Oak Ridge publication "The Discovery of Element 117". Her Oak Ridge autobio says her part of the discovery of the new element was to "contribute ... to the purification of the Bk-249 used to help discover Z=117".  Sounds like a very minor role in an undertaking involving a large number of people.  I don't see convincing evidence that she is notable as a scientist or meets .  I agree with the others who cited  as an issue
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: Arguments being made here for deletion due to a claimed lack of "notability" do not apply because Oak Ridge National Laboratory has decided for us that Phelps is notable enough to be a featured scientist. Such declarations by institutional sources like Oak Ridge are the highest level of |reliability and |verifiability that Wikipedia can hope for. It is, frankly, arrogant and silly to claim that these profiles of Phelps are not good enough sources for our volunteer encyclopedia writing
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V)

Comment: for failing to pass rof unless somebody can find citations on GS to her published work. I can find none. The other sources trace to public relations material issued by the subject's employer and are not Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources|independent.  is not passed. Policy is clear-cut
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P||WP:GNG)

Comment: Article relies almost entirely on PRIMARY sources about a bachelor's degree level project administrator at a notable scientific research institution.  She has worked on educational outreach projects encouraging young women from minority communities to aspire to STEM careers.  Problem is  ALL SOURCES are PRIMARY with the exception of a single local news story about 22 local women being honored by the YWCA for making wonderful contributions to the community. Each of the 22 gets a photo and a brief paragraph in the Knoxville paper.  She did present a poster at the poster session of a scientific meeting, and has signed publications, including 2 where she is the first author. (Her bio at Oak Ridge Lab here: https://www.ornl.gov/staff-profile/clarice-e-phelps) She may well be working on an advanced degree.  But she is not a notable scientist at present.  Perhaps a case of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)