Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ash M. Richter


 * 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 delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Ash M. Richter

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable. All but one of the cited sources are not independent of the subject, and their promotional tone carries through to the article. The one exception is a National Geographic article, but it doesn't actually mention the subject's name. I couldn't find anything else that would meet the WP:GNG or WP:NPROF. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete clearly we do not have enough for passing GNG. An article that fails to mention someone's name is not a source that we can use to justify passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom --GRuban (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to give Sirjulio their week. --GRuban (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's been a week, and has not edited. --GRuban (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Nothing found in Google Scholar (articles about environmental sciences by a different author) and the first Google books listing is about the colouring archeologist or something similar... Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep actual googling her results in considerable media, including her Google Scholar page with numerous publications and several 3rd party articles--all of which qual as independent. Majority of third party citations do mention the subject by name, and/or are interviews or quotations of public addresses by subject. I continue to repeat my ongoing concern that female scientist stubs are being deleted from Wikipedia without due diligence and with prejudice. And if an archaeologist who now leads technology projects for the CIA isn't wikipedia worthy- what is? Or does she have to be a man to count?...Keep and reassess the standards and editorial standards that are blocking female scientists from having the presence they deserve User: Anonymous (because I'm tired of being trolled by male editors for objecting to their edits of women's wikis) 00:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hecate316 (talk • contribs)
 * Could you provide some links, please? I was unable to find any third-party references and the subject's Google Scholar profile shows low citation counts, far below the level that would usually be required to pass WP:PROF. And please avoid casting aspersions about other editors. There is no prejudice here, and I did a thorough search for sources before nominating. We don't have to abandon our commitment to verifiability and neutral point of view to improve our coverage of women in science. There are plenty of women archaeologists who are clearly and do not yet have articles and if you would like to help us write about them, you are welcome to join our ongoing WikiProject Archaeology task force. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, working for the CIA is often accompanied by not being notable, and vice versa. They are rather big on that. See Valerie Plame. --GRuban (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hold I must concede the cause of this discussion is due to my inexperience at wiki editing, I created the article using the name Ash (most commonly used with informal sources) instead of Ashley (formal citations). The google scholar page of the citations is here: Google Scholar - Ashley M. Richter. Editing Wikipedia has long been an interest to pursue when possible and my readings into the efforts to generate a digital twin of significant heritage sites such as The 2012 Petra Cyber-Archaeology Cultural Conservation Expedition and the science of Cyber-Archaeology I believe to be of significant public interest. So this first article I've created was to be the seed of a larger web of articles that document within Wikipedia's guidelines this important science. If reasonable, I request another week to address the articles current issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirjulio (talk • contribs) 21:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem here isn't really anything to do with the article,, it's that Richter doesn't appear to be notable by Wikipedia's standards. That is the test we use to decide whether topics should have articles, rather than 'public interest'. The only way you can address that is by showing us that there are multiple independent, reliable sources that contain significant coverage of her or her work. Searching for 'Ashley Richter' doesn't turn up any for me. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF for this very-recent PhD.  Google Scholar page  shows very small citation numbers for NPROF C1, and there are no signs of the other criteria of NPROF, nor of other notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm struggling to see evidence of notability. Perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Citations on Google Scholar show the subject is not ready for WP:PROF. And we have no sign of the multiple in-depth reliable independent sources needed for WP:GNG — I thought from the title that the "Women Advancing GEOINT" source might at least provide a single one, but it only quotes Richter briefly, so fails to be in-depth. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per David Eppstein's rationale. --Tataral (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.