Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Meir (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Secret account 05:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Jessica Meir
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Veryhuman (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy DeleteNotability not observed. She is an ordinary researcher, not the notable personality. Jussychoulex (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A speedy delete is inappropriate after an AfD of no consensus, no? Clearly there are some reasonable people who believe a keep vote can be sustained. Speedy is only for the clearest cases of no possible notability. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete h-index of 6 fails WP:Prof. Too much puffery for WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC).
 * Delete for same reasons I submitted in prev AfD: young-in-career post-doc, avg research record, with all sources either having only trivial mention (1 of them), or not satisfying WP:RS at all (the rest of them). Creator indicated this was one of many articles s/he created on "aquanauts", but that aspect is not notable per se and there seems to be nothing else to justify keeping. Agricola44 (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC).
 * Keep -- per the reasons that Agricola44 and I debated last AfD -- the Globe and Mail and other sources are independent and enough for GNG, though not for WP:PROF. But I also think that this second AfD is too soon even after a no consensus close (it'd definitely be too soon if the last result was keep or delete) -- there simply hasn't been enough time for a real consensus to emerge as opposed to the opinions of whoever happens to be reading AfD one week vs another. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. A friendly reminder that the Globe and Mail article is actually about the group "Adventurers and Scientists for Conservation" and only mentions Meir peripherally. The PR-related NSF, Scripps, and NASA website material and her NASA homepage also do not satisfy what we conventionally consider WP:RS. There are several web-zine articles, but these likewise don't seem to be WP:RS either. For example, the Mother Goose article says it is "provided to LiveScience in partnership with the National Science Foundation", seemingly more NSF-contracted publicity rather than legitimate, independent coverage of Meir. I agree it is somewhat soon after the first AfD, but nom appears to have not been involved in the previous one. If article is kept, it is likely we'll all be here again in a few months when someone else wonders by and realizes this person isn't actually notable. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC).
 * Keep. Passes WP:BIO, which supersedes WP:ACADEMIC. As was said when this was at AfD two months ago, Meir has been written up in several popular science sources such as US News & World Report, ScienceNOW, ScienceNews, and LiveScience, establishing notability by meeting WP:BASIC. Arguments attacking the reliability of the sources in the article seem hyperbolic. The Globe & Mail piece devotes three paragraphs to Meir and she is on the board of the organization. It should be noted that a large chunk of this article was also recently removed. Gobōnobō  + c 14:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Arguments affirming the reliability of all these sources seem hyperbolic**2 :) Most of the ones you mention are webzines/PR that do not satisfy WP:RS/WP:INDY. For example, you mentioned the LiveScience article – that is a PR-piece evidently written by an NSF employee to promote work that they themselves funded, cf. "This work, funded by a National Science Foundation International Research Fellowship Program grant..." The source is not independent, but rather has a vested interest in promoting Meir. I would say there are now enough keeps to result in at least a no-consensus-default-to-keep, so we'll all see each other a few months from now when some newcomer puts this up for AfD again:) best, Agricola44 (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC).
 * Lest there be any misunderstanding about the "large chunk" that was removed, let me remind the panel that there were no nefarious activities here. There was broad acknowledgement in the original AfD that most of the article was WP:PUFF. I stated on talk my intention to clean this, then waited a month, then removed all text which was unsourced personal narrative/promotion/puff, including her future plans, her hobbies, undergrad projects, etc. (Again, documented on talk.) Does your statement suggest that this material should be restored? Agricola44 (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC).
 * Keep. As the article's creator, I was advised last time that I should feel free to vote "Keep", so... "Keep". BTW, I was quite open to the article being slimmed down, although I was a little startled by how drastic the compression was. Also, WRT Agricola44 referring to me as "s/he"... I'm a guy. :-) Gildir (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep While the sources aren't overwhelming, I think the article's subject just meets WP:PROF.  Mini  apolis  16:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Since this is a very evenly divided debate so far and since there was almost uniform agreement in the previous AfD that she did not satisfy WP:PROF, would you mind elaborating? Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC).
 * Weak keep. I think she does not pass WP:PROF, but does pass WP:GNG on the basis of the popular-media publications about her work. (Incidentally, the bit about geese at the Johnson Space Center reminded me a bit of this artist, but I think it's completely unrelated.) —David Eppstein (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - appears to pass GNG, but not PROF. Tiggerjay (talk) 05:25, 27 February 2013 (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.