Kassandra Ford: No significant coverage, scientific publications with very low impact currently (e.g., as seen on her Google scholar profile and her h-index of 3: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=f4g3gQgAAAAJ ).  There is nothing to justify WP:ACADEMIC .  Chiserc ( talk ) 23:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions .  Chiserc ( talk ) 23:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  I have not yet formulated an opinion on the merits of this specific article, but I found this on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators as part of a batch of five new deletion nominations by the same nominator , all of women academics.  This is far out of proportion to the number of articles, or the number of new articles, on women academics.  If this nominator is specifically targeting women for deletion, we have a problem.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 00:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Correction: The batch of women academic nominators had two different nominators.  Of the two, the one I have been in contact with on my talk ( User:Chiserc ) appears to be unrepentant about the discriminatory effect caused by searching women's categories for deletion targets.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 22:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  Ford's role in co-organizing Black Birders Week is notable and demonstrates "substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" (Criterion #7 WP:ACADEMIC ) .  CarCai ( talk ) 15:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I disagree.  She does not appear to me to meet WP:Notable standards for a biography, failing quite a bit short in fact.  I vote delete.  Go4thProsper ( talk ) 01:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .   Can't see notability outside of the organizing Black Birders Week (which was in itself not - as yet - regarded as an important event in the field); probably merge or redirect to Black Birders Week as an ATD? .  Aszx5000 ( talk ) 09:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  There are numerous red flags.  For example, the subject is a post-doc and has almost no notable research (h-index 3; ~40 total citations).  The text is misleading regarding awards, e.g. postdoctoral fellow is not notable.  Most of the references are ephemeral/web.  Text is also misleading with respect to Black Birders Week, which was actually organized by dozens of people.  In fact, her name is not even mentioned in the WP article on that topic.  Overall, this appears to be a fanpage/boosterpage.  128.252.172.27 ( talk ) 14:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak merge to Black Birders Week , which indeed does not currently mention her but probably should.  Otherwise probably delete.  I don't know if there's a name for the phenomenon in this article, in which the bulk of the article is taken up with personal information that does not relate to the notability claim, thus turning the concept of notability (qua sources sufficient to support an article) on its head.  But it's definitely a red flag of sorts.  That's not because the article is necessarily promotional let alone self-promotional, but because it's unavoidably invasive and ends up exposing information that would otherwise be substantially private.  That's just not a good outcome for anyone (either Wikipedia or the article subject), even if formal BLP issues can be avoided.  Although the subject's feelings may not be relevant to the outcome of the AFD, I would not assume that the article subject welcomes this level of coverage.  -- Visviva ( talk ) 02:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Definitely does not meet any NPROF criteria (postdocs/asst profs rarely do), and I am not seeing sustained significant coverage in IRS to support GNG.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 18:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is additional support for a Merge of this article.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Redirect .  Nowhere near passing WP:Prof .  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 05:55, 27 June 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: redirect