Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denise A. Rangel Tracy


 * 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. Kinu t/c 08:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Denise A. Rangel Tracy

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article has been sitting in the New Pages Feed for months unreviewed so I’d like to get a consensus on it. The subject does not appear to me to meet WP:NPROF as an assistant professor. PROD by another editor was declined on the grounds that she has won a major award. I’m not sure the award is in fact major, and the notability of the subject seems to depend on this pretty much entirely. Mccapra (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. Were it not for the AWM Service Award, I'd be a straightforward delete as I think it's WP:TOOSOON for notability under WP:NPROF. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. As I already wrote at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red, I think the service award is the only case for notability here. But I don't think it's enough for WP:PROF, mainly because I don't think service awards in general convey the "academic prestige" asked for by that criterion, but also because it's a bit unselective (they've handed out 31 of these awards since they started 7 years ago ) and because AWM is smaller than several other national-level mathematics organizations so its awards carry less weight. The other WP:PROF criteria are clearly out of reach, so we would have to go for general rather than academic notability, and hope that it's for more than just one thing, but the article makes no case for that either. It's a shame, because I want to encourage the creation of more articles on women mathematicians, but the creators of such articles should be encouraged to understand our criteria for notability and to target subjects that clearly meet them. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Academic notability is for people who have achieved distinction in the field, not for people who have only been in a tenure track position for one year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. I take the awards for WP:NPROF C2 (similarly to C3, C5) as being generally supposed to demonstrate that C1 (or C4, or possibly something like C6) has been met.  A service-specific award is unlikely to do that, and I agree with David Eppstein's assessment of the AWM service award in particular.  Otherwise WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF - subject appears to have a significant role in AWM, but not to the level of WP:NPROF C6.  No sign of other notability criteria.  Comment that per subject's faculty profile, they are an active editor on Wikipedia; I hope the AfD does not discourage them. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:52, 22 October 2020 (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.