Marijuana Pepsi Vandyck: Probably meets WP:NACADEMIC at least if someone can collect sources on her publications.  Kingsif ( talk ) 21:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : There are a number of sources about the subject, but all centre around (what they see as) her unusual name.  Vandyck's research has not yet made significant impact in her discipline to meet WP:NACADEMIC .  All in all WP:TOOSOON .  – Ploni 💬 00:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed that most articles focus on her name in some way, but there are other Wikipedia articles with that kind of focus, like Place names considered unusual .  Not sure why coverage for that aspect would be necessarily less legitimate.  Benny White ( talk ) 02:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Meets WP:BASIC and I don't think the exclusions apply.  There are many reliable sources.  Most are from the same timeframe (2019), but not all.  One that is currently included in the article is from 2009.  Benny White ( talk ) 02:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Women , Georgia (U.S. state) , Illinois ,  and Wisconsin .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No pass of WP:Prof with zero cites of GS.  Not enough achievement yet for WP:GNG .  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 06:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Redirect and lightly merge to Naming in the United States .   I'm seeing a single source from 2009, and a flurry of sources from 2019, all human interest stories about the unusual name.   This looks like a WP:BLP1E to me.  Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 14:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Per WP:BLP1E , all coverage is a single point in time about her getting a PhD.  No pass of WP:Prof and no pass of GNG.  -- hroest 17:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Article is notable in my opinion, but could benefit from more sources.  Mjks28 ( talk ) 05:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Seems like many good sources with significant coverage from 2019-2020.  There is also a in-depth article from 2009.  I think this establishes enough notability to keep the article.  – notwally ( talk ) 23:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect and merge .  BLP1E strongly applies here, and the subject does not meet any NPROF criteria.  However, there is significant coverage in 2009, surrounding her name, that could be merged.  Considering how often two sources with 3–4 sentences of routine , often non-independent or non-RS, [4] [5] transfer coverage each, or even merely the unevidenced presumption that such sources exist, [6] [7] pass as "GNG" for athletes, [8] it's only fair that the far more extensive biographical coverage here would count for something .  JoelleJay ( talk ) 15:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Opinion divided between Keep, Delete and Redirect.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (I don't feel strongly about this, and just weighing in because of the relist request and the chirps afterwards) -- the one article from 2009 in addition to all the 2019 articles makes me feel like it is somewhat more than a one-event coverage.   There's no exemption for notability for "one thing", it's one event.  So given the long time period of coverage, seems like a weak keep, but I can totally understand those who disagree.  -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Just clears WP:GNG with the 2009 and 2019 Stingl articles in the Journal-Sentinel counting as one (not independent of each other) and the BBC source counting as another.  The other sources are churnalism based on Stingl's original work.  No evidence she qualifies under WP:NACADEMIC .  I am generally persuaded by MSCuthbert 's argument that an unusual name is not an "event" and thus WP:BLP1E does not apply.  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 15:23, 3 July 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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus