Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathie-Ann Joseph (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 keep. Seems like a consensus to keep developed after the relist, grounded on substantial new sourcing Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Kathie-Ann Joseph
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability. No doubt an excellent surgeon but the sources don't support notability of WP:BLP. The most likely looking source is actually a wedding announcement  Velella  Velella Talk 18:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep there are enough sources citations to merit inclusion. Natureium (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - unfortunately, sheer numbers of sources does not equate to RS. Can you point out what you believe are the independent reliable sources that demonstrate notability? They are not apparent to me  Velella  Velella Talk 12:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe 650 citations is enough for NPOF C1. (Although that's my least favorite standard.) Natureium (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * But this has only 8, including one which is a wedding announcement...... am I missing something here?  Velella  Velella Talk 17:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , what? See the GScholar and Scopus profiles. I am declining to !vote since I have strong doubts as to whether an h-index of 13 is remarkable enough. &#x222F; WBG converse 15:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep She has substantial news coverage, excellent credentials, and several awards. There's a nice summary in this that suggests material to be added and sourced to clearly establish notability. The lead could make the case for notability more clearly. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 00:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Having accomplishment and notability are not the same thing. Otherwise, every Ivy League graduate and every doctor would get an article. Heck, my aunts would get articles. Y’all managed to dig 23 years for a wedding announcement but can’t do the same for actual sigcov? Trillfendi (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I've rewritten the lead to indicate sources that establish notability. They were easy to find; most of them were mentioned in the summary source I noted previously. More could be written about her work. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - note that I've stricken MMO's 2nd keep !vote, but having doubled the content of the article recently, perhaps she deserves 2 !votes :D . It's now an obvious keep. The two sources Crain's New York Business 40 under 40 and Essence (magazine) 25 Most Influential African Americans 2009 are enough by themselves to establish notability. The 20 or so other refs are quite reasonable sources, I'll even include the wedding announcement - since it's from the New York Times, it's quite enough to establish her early history (high school, university, medical school, etc.) Smallbones( smalltalk ) 14:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per Natureium and Smallbones. Passes NACADEMIC based on citations, awards, and impact. – bradv 🍁  16:00, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep for demonstrated awards and impact based upon the expanded article with additional citations. Dorevabelfiore (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep because it passes NACADEMIC, also it seems all the reasons for nomination have been fixed in the interim. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 08:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I have added a couple more sources. She meets WP:BASIC and possibly WP:NACADEMIC too. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2019 (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.