Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kayisha Payne


 * 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Kayisha Payne

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't seem to pass the Google test. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 20:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @  20:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @  20:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @  20:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak delete: She seems like she's on an upward trajectory, but it seems premature to include her in Wikipedia yet.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 23:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete On the topic of GNG: One reference looks to be independent - astrazeneca, but all the other material looks to be written by our subject or released from the organisation founded by the subject. Accademic notability is absent, and even appearance in a top 100 of a small group is not a great claim of importance. Doing a Google search reveals the same references we already have, and a big bunch of solcial media, a significant sign of not being notable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * - Astrazeneca is not independent- it's her employer. MedImmune is a wholly owned subsidiary of Astrazeneca, the release by Astrazeneca is a rather standard PR piece prompted by an employee being mentioned positively in the media (in this case in the BAME list). Icewhiz (talk) 09:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * OK struck my wrong comment, and now a stronger delete vote, being a draft for a few years is also acceptable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep published as a influencer if the FT, which established notability.  One of the under-represented groups on wikipedia that we should be creating articles for. WCM email 09:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep agree with . Hninthuzar (talk) 08:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Not enough sources to really that shows notability in subject. WP:TOOSOON PlotHelpful (talk) 10:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I have noticed a tendency for new articles to be nominated for deletion (or even PRODded) very quickly. This article is one week old. The subject's inclusion in a Top 100 BAME leaders in technology dates from just over 2 months ago. The article includes sources like the Financial Times, the official blog of the Institute of Chemical Engineers, and the Inclusive Boards website profile of her, indications that she has gained notability, and is a likely subject for searches. I would prefer to tag the article for notability and more sources, as per WP:BEFORE C2 and C3. The two months that have passed since her inclusion in the Top100 list is not enough time for many scholarly journals to publish anything about it. Some may say it's too soon to include her, but an alternative viewpoint is that Wikipedia can be too quick to delete. Another alternative to deletion would be draftifying or userfying - that would enable the creator and/or other editors to add other sources as they are found. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I'd like to keep the article because she does have reliable third party sources. The FT establishes her as notable, especially. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * All the 100 people mentioned over there are wiki-notable? &#x222F; WBG converse 18:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: The sources used in the article already indicate notability. More could no doubt be found.--Ipigott (talk) 09:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Find it. &#x222F; WBG converse 18:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong delete-TOOSOON per Graemme. Fails any notability guideline by a few miles or so and being in the 100s is utterly non-satisfying. &#x222F; WBG converse 18:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not averse to a draftification, per Rebecaa's ideas. &#x222F; WBG converse 18:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Clearly not notable - is not close to passing any SNG or GNG. Being named in an ethnic-specific top-100 in a sector-specific list is not an indication of notability nor a significant award. The sole usable reference is the article (disregarding blogs and non-independent sources (e.g. her employer, and an organization she's involved with)) is the FT article (a list of "top 100 BAME in tech") which contains a single line about Payne in the middle of the list - "Kayisha Payne	Founder, BBSTEM Associate Scientist II, MedImmune Female" - so clearly fails WP:INDEPTH. Given the clear lack of multiple reliable, independent, in-depth, secondary sources - an article on this subject can not be developed while adhering to WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:NOTSOAP. Icewhiz (talk) 09:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not seeing indications of notability as a scientist or by meeting WP:GNG. As a scientist, her job title is a seemingly unimpressive "Associate Scientist" and, more importantly, I can't find a single reference of her in Google Scholar. In terms of meeting WP:GNG, my own search doesn't find any significant independent coverage.  The references in the article consist of something from her company, a short resume from inclusiveboards.com (reliability?), a blog, something from the organization she started, and the listing of her in the FT's article about the list they created (and that's is not significant coverage).  This article, at best, seems WP:TOOSOON and claiming notability for founding an new organization that launched last August is both too soon and WP:BLP1E. Papaursa (talk) 05:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:Too soon. no achievements of significance found as yet. Only refs are not WP:INDEPTH. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC).

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per RebeccaGreen and WeeCurryMonster -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Neither the article, nor any other editors, nor my own search found significant independent coverage in multiple reliable sources to show the GNG is met. I also don't see that any other notability standards are met.Sandals1 (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete this page about a project manager in the research labs of drug company AstraZeneca. She is NOT a PhD scientist and there is no claim ot notability as a scientist.  She is a sort of poster child for minority-women-in-STEM, but even here she has no serious or significant claim to notability.  I strongly suspect ever editor at Wikipedia of having a strong bias in favor of minorities and women making STEM contributions and of having STEM careers open to everyone.  That does not mean that being listed as one of the top 100 black and minority ethnic leaders in technology in the UK in 2018 + notability.  It means that the UK has an embarrassingly low number of  black and minority ethnic scientists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete though I am not opposed to it being a draft. I tried searching for research papers/citations but I am unable to find (which could be plausible if the person is not an academic/educator). When I look for sources, there is a mention on a list in Financial Times, but it is among many other names and doesn't offer significant coverage. Lists such as "top x people of y ethnicity in z field" are often published by many media houses and it is unclear how selective they are. Other than this, I am drawing much of a blank for independent third party coverage. I think the person could become notable in the future, but at this time there are very few sources which provide significant coverage.--DreamLinker (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think this is hype over substance (and this is not a media-BLP, but a science/academic BLP).  Her WP:GNG criteria and her WP:NPROF are effectively zero.  I don't know if Astra Zeneca's HR marketing department is at work here but if she hadn't appeard on this top 100 list (however it was constructed), she would be a strong WP:A7 candidate.  WP:TOOSOON implies that she is on an academic trajectory, but apart from being an "associate scientist" in AZ, there is no tangible evidence of even such a trajectory?  Britishfinance (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.