Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Frome


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was no consensus. It seems like there are good arguments on both the delete and the keep side whether we are discussing WP:GNG-based notability or WP:PROF-based notability, and neither side clearly prevails over the other. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Andrea Frome

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lacks in-depth WP:RS for her work, it seems to WP:TOOSOON, she has joined Google just 11 months back. Fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 05:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. An h-index of only 14 is not yet enough in a super-hot topic WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC).
 * Many of the entries in her GS profile are patents, which I normally wouldn't count as scholarship. Without those it drops to 9. On the other hand, 8 of the 9 have over 100 citations each... —David Eppstein (talk) 06:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Move to draft . The page was created only today, and it looks like it needs more work.  She's a 2007 Ph.D., with relatively few papers, but the citations on those few are high enough that she might meet WP:NPROF (or might not). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - Frome joined Google a second time only 11 months ago, but prior to that she was at Google for almost 8 years. I added a note here to clarify the information.Jooojay (talk) 09:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep  per WP:ACADEMIC based on the citations of her research. A check of her Google Scholar profile show numerous papers with over a hundred citations. Thsmi002 (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete: Looks like just another person with a doctorate. I really don't care for the Google Scholar search results and their cryptic titles; they are not the reason people like Einstein are famous. This person does not seem to have had any impact. flowing dreams (talk page) 10:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete she does not meet a plain reading of the first academic notability criteria. Her level of citiations considering the state of the field she is in is not enough to make her notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Draftify (move to draft). I agree with  Russ on this.  More WP:RS than I expected which mention, or in some cases discuss her.  I wouldn't be in any rush to toss this just yet. — Ched (talk) 09:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Several considerations. Nominator appears to be a bit confused, as they also nominated a biography I created on a female academic thinking it was a man. This person was employed by Google for over 8 years in total, not 11 months as stated, but that's beside the point. Clearly meets WP:ACADEMIC, and has media coverage on top of that. I find comments such as "Looks like just another person with a doctorate" deeply insulting and chauvinistic. She has had a direct impact over technologies such as street view (being directly responsible for its blurring of plates and faces), and this is backed by both her published work (highly cited) and coverage in the press. As part of the WiR WikiProject and its monthly underrepresented women intitatives I have created several articles about notable women in STEM and other areas. I have faced considerable pushback by obviously male editors with an agenda, and Wikipedia should be truly ashamed of itself. If these women had been male their biographies would most likely not be put into question, and least of all with such wanton and careless arguments. As for draftification, what good would that do? If not in mainspace nobody will work on it and it will fall into oblivion. The sources are out there and the article is in more than decent shape! Why fix something that isn't broken? PK650 (talk) 03:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per above comments, well sourced and notable. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The citation counts are suggestive of notability via WP:PROF, but (because it's a high-citation field, the papers have many authors, and the citations drop off so quickly after the top 10) not conclusive, as XXan's opinion above already hints. So I'd like other evidence of notability as well, to confirm that suggestion. The evidence we have in the article is: an in-depth profile in TechTalks and an in-depth interview in Kaptur, both of which appear to be reliable and independent. Churnalistic press-release-like stories in TechCrunch and Bizwomen (or maybe San Francisco Business Times?) about Clarifai hiring her, about which I have doubts both about the depth of coverage and the independence. And a story in the New York Times that I can't read because I'm too annoyed at the Times' political hackery to sign up for the free subscription that I could get from my employer, but that seems likely from its first few lines merely to name-drop her as one of 25 signers of an open letter. Not included in the article are this story about her featured talk at a women's conference and several reliable-looking but non-in-depth international sources reporting her assignment to a new Google lab in Accra. I think the TechTalks and Kaptur sources are the strongest, and they make a weak case for WP:GNG, but the case is there. So she has a borderline case for two notability criteria, and I think that's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure these articles make the case for passing WP:GNG. The TechTalks article is substantive, while the NVidia blog post include three paragraphs about the subject (but is primarily about the conference, not the subject's talk). The interview in Kaptur would not normally add to the notability of the subject. Of the three publishers listed here, only NVidia has its own Wikipedia page, raising a question about the reliability and reach of the articles listed in the article. --Enos733 (talk) 03:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Obviously notable, not so much as an academic but as someone who has had a measurable impact on an importãnt technological development.--Ipigott (talk) 07:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The article has gotten some improvements from folks over the past week (though it could use more).  David Eppstein has a good point that her weak cases through both WP:GNG and WP:NPROF should be taken together to form a stronger case.  In short, the combination of academic and general sources make it look like her work has had a substantial impact on computer vision. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Sorta Eppstein except that am not convinced. &#x222F; WBG converse 15:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep No worse than borderline wiki-notability by either WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Together, they carry the article over the bar. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.