Parmida Beigi: The page is full of mundane events written up as though they are not (e.g., Her research findings were published as a journal article — yes, that's what a researcher's job is to do).  The only in-depth source fails the independence requirement , since it is from her employer.  Other sources do not mention the subject at all, e.g., this page that just describes teaching assistantships at UBC.  The h-index has its flaws as a measure of academic success and influence, but an h-index of only 10 even by the permissive standards of Google Scholar is nowhere near what we would consider highly cited .  PROD was removed by article creator.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 21:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Computing ,  and Women .  XOR'easter ( talk ) 21:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 21:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the feedback.  About the award, please note that NSERC is an award by the Government of Canada, intended to be a fair assessment solely based on the merits of researchers' research.  PhD/Post graduate funding does not influence the selection process.  I believe this individual deserves a Wikipedia page based on the guidelines outlined by Wikipedia.  Apart from their academic notability (apparent from NSERC recognition alone), they have made significant contributions to the democratization of AI/ML, as evidenced by their involvement in engaging with the community through various social channels.  They are highly recognized in the data science and ML community, and that's the main reason I started this page for them.  The recognition by Amazon Science holds high regard in the industry, highlighting Beigi's significant contributions and community involvement.  While the individual is currently an employee of Alexa AI organization, Amazon Science, is considered an independent blog that showcases exceptional individuals within the company.  I'd like to highlight that only a selected few individuals are featured on this blog, and the selection process is conducted solely by Amazon Science committee itself.  I would appreciate any suggestions regarding additional information that could further support the legitimacy of the article.  I reorganized the main sections to improve the article.  I would appreciate any further guidance or suggestions on how to enhance the article and provide additional relevant information.  WikiFactEditorial ( talk ) 22:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] An NSERC CGSD2 is a 2-year scholarship to support one's doctoral work, not an "award" in the sense that the notability guidelines ask for.  We don't write articles based on future potential .  Nor does a person qualify merely for having written papers.  That's what the job is about, after all.  There is no way that a blog by the subject's employer can be considered an independent source for the purpose of establishing notability, no matter who within the employer decides to write it.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 22:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Total fail of WP:Prof : nothing else.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 22:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Delete .  Yet another unaccomplished "science communicator".  Of the sources in the nominated version of the article, "On a mission to demystify artificial intelligence" is by her employer, so non-independent.  The UBC "teaching assistantships" source doesn't mention her.  "Be Updated With Big Data On Instagram With These 10 Profiles" and "Learning Data Science Through Social Media" are neither in-depth nor reliable.  The rest appear to be works by Beigi, social media links, or mere announcements of talks by her.  So we do not have a pass of WP:GNG demonstrated.  The listing of awards in the infobox is decidedly unimpressive (definitely not the kind that might pass WP:PROF#C2 , nor likely to have the in-depth coverage needed for GNG).  And as already noted, her Google Scholar citation counts are not yet at a level that would pass WP:PROF#C1 .  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 23:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback on my article.  I appreciate the committee's efforts in reviewing the content.  However, I would like to highlight that the term "unaccomplished science communicators" may not be an appropriate or accurate characterization.  The individuals who are often recognized as "accomplished" based on the guidelines are typically the "communicators" in fact, working with news agencies and media outlets to share their opinion!  But remember that many accomplished scientists in high-tech fields or startups are often involved in confidential projects where they cannot openly discuss their work, and may not even have any interest in getting involved with news agencies anyways.  Nonetheless, they are still making significant contributions to their respective fields, if not more.  Thanks for the feedback!  WikiFactEditorial ( talk ) 18:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just a quick clarification: there's no "committee" here; we're all just volunteers who for whatever reason think that writing an encyclopedia is a good hobby.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 19:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for clarifying, that explains it then.  I didn't appreciate the disrespectful and unconstructive references and comments I encountered in some of the discussions.  Anyhow, I have requested the speedy deletion of this article to facilitate the tasks of the volunteers!  WikiFactEditorial ( talk ) 19:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I don't see how WP:NPROF is met, or significant independant coverage for WP:GNG .  More like a case of WP:TOOSOON .  - Kj cheetham ( talk ) 17:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete "Smart person gets money" is what this boils down to, no sort of any award we'd recognize as notable.  TOOSOON as well.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The discussion above is closed.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion outcome: no consensus