Silvia Caballero: Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Biology .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  See coverage by Time at https://time.com/collection-post/5718877/silvia-caballero/ and Technology Review (the second biography) at https://www.technologyreview.com/innovator/abhinav-kandala/ Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 15:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Both are not significant coverage of the individual, each is barely a paragraph, telling us briefly about her biography.  We need more extensive sourcing of the individual.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi Oaktree b this is going to be continued to be improved upon as part of the sfsu collaboration with wikipedia.  We're working on finding more sources for this article.  After we've added some more sources, I encourage you to review the article once again.  Lykourgos3444 ( talk ) 20:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Lykourgos3444 and Eastmain : The quote, from the MIT source, "She played a key role in the creation of the world’s largest library of human gut bacteria and led a campaign to test thousands of species for their ability to kill those three menacing organisms." sounds interesting - but can you find more info on those achievements?  Pam D 07:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If "this is going to be continued to be improved upon", as you say (beyond the way in which this is true of almost every Wikipedia article), then please add the {{ under construction }} template or work on it in draft, so that editors do not waste everyone's time bringing it to AfD within 3 days of it being created in mainspace.  But, better, do not create an article in mainspace until you have included enough solid sourcing to demonstrate notability.  Pam D 07:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We encourage you to work in draft, where you will get a more meaningful review.  Deb ( talk ) 08:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Clearly passes WP:Sigcov .  Maliner ( talk ) 18:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Clearly?  On what evidence?  Relevant guidelines are WP:NPROF .  Under which criterion/criteria do they pass?  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 18:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, WP:SNGs are addenda to the GNG.  Meeting the GNG always overrides any need to pass an SNG.  Guettarda ( talk ) 19:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You cannot meet WP:GNG without meeting WP:NPROF .  But the question is still: what is the evidence for the claim that this clearly passes WP:SIGCOV ?  I am not, at this point, willing to say I do not believe she does, but there is no evidence here or in the article that she does?  Under what NPROF criteria is this academic deemed to be notable?  The nom.  says no references are found.  Do you have references that, per SIGCOV, must be significant reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 19:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You cannot meet WP:GNG without meeting WP:NPROF - no, that's not the way it works.  Please read the guidelines you're linking to.  Guettarda ( talk ) 19:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Are you saying that an academic need not meet NPROF to establish notability?  or are you saying this person is notable for being something other than an academic?  Again, what sources are you relying on?  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 20:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Obviously the former.  They only need to meet the GNG.  Guettarda ( talk ) 13:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not obvious to me.  NPROF says: "This guideline reflects consensus about the notability of academics as measured by their academic achievements".  The caveat in NPROF is about notability for something other than their academic achievements.  However, as you clearly are not going to provide any sources to demonstrate notability under any guideline, I'll leave the meta discussion there.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 14:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Any topic only needs to meet GNG.  It does not matter whether they're an academic, a cat, a restaurant, a pillow, or even a wikipedia controversy.  If a topic clearly meets GNG, there is no need to worry about why they meet GNG or any SNG, it's beside the point.  (Note I make no comment on whether the subject of this article does meet GNG.)  Nil Einne ( talk ) 07:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, and if this person meet GNG for some reason other than their academic career (e.g. because they have significant coverage for some other interest or activity) then they meet GNG and can have an article.  But when it comes to evaluating their academic career, the relevant guideline is NPROF.  SNGs specifically show how notability is achieved in that subject specific area.  The NPROF guidelines reflect the community consensus about the notability of academics as measured by their academic achievements.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 08:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, you're mistaken.  Again, it doesn't matter why they meet GNG.  If they meet GNG for any reason then they're notable and can have an article.  If they meet it because of their academic then what NPROF says does not concern us in any way.  Although again the concept of someone meeting GNG for their academic career is fairly silly anyway.  We do not evaluate why someone meets GNG because it's a completely pointless activity and sometimes people may meet GNG for a multitude of reasons and sometimes it may not even be that clear.  Nil Einne ( talk ) 16:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is meta and not really helpful.  We do not agree, because as I said at the start (perhaps insufficently clearly) you cannot meet GNG for the academic career without meeting NPROF.  It is possible for an academic to be notable in some other way under GNG or other subject specific guidelines, but the purpose of NPROF is to establish and spell out the community consensus "about the notability of academics as measured by their academic achievements."  Yet while we disagree on semantics, I doubt we disagree in practice.  I don't get the impression that you are saying that one can fail NPROF and yet still be considered a notable academic based on the fact that, say, they have x number of publications.  If you are saying that, I won't discuss it further here but feel free to ping me to your talk page.  If you are not saying that, then I doubt the semantics difference needs resolving, and we can leave it there.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 18:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  She is an award-wining scientist in the medical community with an extensive background of published research.  I added the reasearch and citations, but didn't have time to inculude all published research.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlighsky ( talk • contribs ) Keep (struck) - per WP:NPROF , criterion 1 and, I think, 7.  The number of publications remains relatively small, but these are highly cited.  Scopus profile .  The h index is 12, but the subject remains at a very early stage of their career.  The inclusion in the TIME 100 NEXT list also indicates that the subject is having a significant impact in their field of study.  This supplementary evidence should be caveated that this is having, not had, and that the sources added that are discussing the inclusion look like they are based on a press release that would not be independent, but this is still a significant level of notability that, in my opinion, meets criterion 1.  That she is working in Vedanta Biosciences, developing therapies, could also meet criterion 7 but I will not consider that further as it is a keep per criterion 1.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 06:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thinking about this, I think my own arguments here raise a question of WP:TOOSOON .  The failure of anyone to present further sources beyond the impressive start to the research career that I found with Scopus, and the fact that the TIME 100 NEXT listing is itself about potential impact, rather than past impact may suggest we are not yet in a position to write an encyclopaedic article about the subject.  I'll leave my ! vote asis for now, but pointing out the weaknesses there for the closer.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 08:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Striking my keep per WP:TOOSOON .  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 06:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  While she is close, an H factor of 12 is not notable, and she is not corresponding authors on any according to scopus.  Her publications (over 10 years) are in general too low for tenure in most universities.  It would help if there was a Google Scholar profile, awards listed, format corrected for refs etc -- see other faculty pages.  If someone can improve the page quickly I might change my vote.  Ldm1954 ( talk ) 14:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Article by another WikiEd'er who doesn't seem to understand notability conventions.  "X under X"-type awards like this one and the others noted in the article do not go toward notability.  She certainly does not satisfy any general notability criteria.  Her higher-cited contributions look as though they were from grad-student days and have large author lists, with her being neither lead nor corresponding author.  And, her overall citations are pretty low relative to the high-citation field she has been working in.  I would echo the point made by Ldm1954, which is that this is a record that would not generally satisfy tenure requirements at a research university.  There is no compelling evidence that this individual is notable under the PROF guidelines.  128.252.154.3 ( talk ) 18:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Does not meet Wikipedia:NPROF .  She may some day in the future be notable, but not now.  We can’t build articles for an academic based on one or two short profiles.  Thriley ( talk ) 03:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Nowhere near the required evidence of notability.  What's going on with this course?  The student editors don't seem to be having their work reviewed by anyone experienced before they shove them into mainspace.  Deb ( talk ) 08:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Agree with nominator, we need to be getting rid of these articles which are not up to the amount of WP:SIGCOV needed.  Also does not meet NPROF.  User:Let'srun 01:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above.  Chamaemelum ( talk ) 07:20, 5 July 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: delete