Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joann Hess Grayson


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. If anyone would like the article userfied to work on it, please let me know. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Joann Hess Grayson

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No notability criteria is met. The article has no secondary sources independent of the subject and I cannot find them either. This person has no available secondary coverage elsewhere, so they do not qualify under WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Further, they do not qualify under WP:ACADEMIC as their H-Index is 0 and the general consensus is that to qualify under the Academic guideline, am H-Index of 15+ is required. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: More discussion is needed for a clearer consensus to be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shoerack (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —  MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC).
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Missouri and Virginia.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  13:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of WP:GNG or WP:PROF notability in the article or elsewhere. I found one article with 200+ citations but psychology is a high citation field and only one well cited publication isn't enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added some news sources detailing some of some work she has done and some of the awards she's received for her work, all mainly at the statewide level. Bridget (talk) 10:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Psychology. Bridget (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. based on the 2 new citations added by @Bridget --> 1 and 2.Royal88888 (talk) 03:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not believe this constitutes significant coverage. A local newspaper has covered the granting of a non-notable award. There are countless people given awards of a similar level all over the world, and coverage in a local newspaper does not, to me, demonstrate significant coverage warranting inclusion in an enyclopaedia. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Doesnt seem to pass NPROF but seems to pass GNG with the newspaper coverage about her and the awards that she received. --hroest
 * How? One is a local newspaper with a stub on being given a non-notable award, and the other addition does not count as it is the paper of the university the subject teaches at, it is not a secondary source independent of the subject and hence does not demonstrate notability. I'd like to see anyone supporting to keep the article provide me their three best sources. If significant coverage can be demonstrated I will withdraw the nomination.— MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete. Little sign of WP:NPROF, and I don't think that routine short items in local news about minor awards constitute WP:SIGCOV for GNG. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:32, 4 December 2023 (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.