Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jemma Wadham


 * 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 keep.  MBisanz  talk 01:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Jemma Wadham

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:TOOSOON, not enough in-depth sources. Baum des Lichtes (talk) 05:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

*Keep Article subject passes WP:PROF and GNG. Article should be retained at wikipedia. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 04:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC) Banned sockpuppetHappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - she meets WP:PROF criterion 2 due to winning a major award (the Philip Levenham Prize). Keilana (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - yeah, major award in her field.Penny Richards (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep for the above reason of winning a notable award that ensures a pass of WP:PROF Atlantic306 (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Per the above. Miyagawa (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I see no evidence that the Philip Levenham Prize is a major award, looks like just another research grant. I also don't see the independent coverage to satisfy GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * keep In fact, Philip Leverhulme Prize is a pretty big deal.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. In-depth media coverage of more than one of her research projects  add up to WP:GNG notability, regardless of WP:PROF, and the Leverhulme Prize makes a plausible case for WP:PROF (prestigious national-level award). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per her awards and coverage of her scientific work. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. GS h-index of 19 contributes to WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC).
 * Keep. In addition to arguments made above, I'll note that a Google News search turns up popular media coverage of her work all over the world. Just to offer some of the English references:
 * http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235063/Electronic-egg-created-climate-change-scientists-reveal-secrets-global-warming.html
 * http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/08/120831-antarctica-methane-global-warming-science-environment/
 * http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2010/03/18/methane-making-microbes-thrive-under-the-ice
 * I think she passes the WP:BASIC benchmark for significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2016 (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.