Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katherine J. Thompson


 * 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The result was Keep per WP:SNOW; nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Katherine J. Thompson

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NBIO. No claims of notability. No significant coverage. One sources is an interviews, others are primary sources. Rogermx (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep as article creator per WP:PROF (fellow of a major academic society for which this is a significant honor, the American Statistical Association), as I already suggested to the nominator in removing their previous prod. The nominator appears to have failed to have even considered this suggestion seriously, and as a result the nomination is seriously flawed by using the wrong notability criterion (should be WP:PROF, not WP:GNG). Note that the primary nature of the sources is not relevant for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Low citation count and no GNG coverage, but the subject still appears to satisfy WP:NACADEMIC#3 as a fellow of the ASA. — MarkH21talk 22:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although GS cites are low WP:Prof is satisfied. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC).
 * Keep/Improve As per above. I added a few cites to better describe the work she does at the census. Jessamyn (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Per WP:NPROF using primary sources is not an issue here. Also, please do WP:BEFORE. --hroest 00:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. In addition to being ASA Fellow, she has served as President of the ASA Section on Government Statistics. Ebony Jackson (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As nominator, I will bow to consensus and remove XFD. Did not see anything in the sources that said the subject was an academic, it simply listed her as a statistician who manages a government department. I could also ask if there is a list of scholarly societies whose membership gives someone a free pass to notability. Thanks to everyone for educating me on this and for upgrading this article.  Rogermx (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not membership, it is fellowship. Anyone can join the ASA, but becoming a fellow requires significant accomplishment. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep as passes WP:NPROF and seems nom has withdrawn. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:16, 7 April 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.