Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Page


 * 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.  Sandstein  15:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Kim Page

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not yet notable--still a postdoc. The awards are student awards. No significant independent published work. The references are not independent. Apparent PR for her university  DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 *  Not sure yet  Delete. Large number of publications and cites on GS, but they all seem to be as part of a large team in which she is a junior partner. I can find little evidence of independent achievement, like single-authored papers. She seems to be an administrator rather than a creative worker. Practice of Wikipedia is not to accept BLPs of people in this situation. WP:Too soon for WP:Prof. Being interviewed on a TV program is not enough to pass WP:GNG, and anyway, interviews are primary sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC).
 * Keep. Although apparently created by university employees (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ShivUoL, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PubEng1) to increase their women count, some of the sources seem alright to me. The student award stuff is not really notable. Deleet (talk) 06:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Lower tier institutions sometimes pay people to write bios of their staff. Prominent ones like Harvard or University of Cambridge do not need to. Here we have an admirable and worthy person, who could well become notable for her work in the future, being subjected to an unneeded critical examination of her career because an inexperienced paid editor did not gain sufficient knowledge of Wikipedia’s consensus on notability before writing her bio. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC).
 * Actually, having worked for one such institution, even at the highest levels some certainly do write staff bios for WP. There are multiple different groups doing PR at a major university, they often work independently, and at least one of them may well write a bio here even if it is the general university policy not to: besides the  university PR dept., there's the PR dept. of the grad school or medical school, etc., and  the person in each  department who does PR, and often a person in some large  research group who sees to the PR. --all of these count as paid editors. (I also know this exists because of the internal evidence of style here, which I can do not like to detail on-wiki,  , and, more directly, because I have had discussions with people in these positions to dissuade them from contributing here.  DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Per nomination - does not meet WP:NACADEMIC, likely WP:TOOSOON. Melcous (talk) 07:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe that short author lists, let alone single-author papers, are a rarity in Page's field, so looking for them would not be helpful in applying the WP:PROF criteria. Going by media coverage, she's not "only" in administrative work. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The practice of many large research groups is to include everybody's name regardless of their contribution. That is why it is difficult to write bios of people in such groups until later in their careers when they branch out and demonstrate independent achievement. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC).
 * The sources are about the discovery of the group, not about her. The UTube (which is not considered to be a reliable source as it is unmoderated) posts, suggest that she is the group's PR contact. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC).
 * The videos are clips from BBC Four's The Sky at Night; they just happen to be hosted at YouTube. What she is actually doing when they filmed her is not administrative or PR work, but handling live reports from the Swift space telescope. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete: Not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia page. Kyuko (talk) 14:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory. I think the notability case is borderline (there isn't quite enough for WP:PROF), but the content isn't so bad that it needs expunging, either. So, a redirect-with-possibilities appears the right way to go. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:TOOSOON and failing WP:GNG. Keeping an article like this would require lowering the bar for notability, and ironically rather than advance or elevate coverage of women in science, it coddles them by treating minor achievements (e.g. undergrad awards) or fleeting coverage as important enough to warrant encyclopedic coverage. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. I quote "As one of the six best undergraduate entrants to the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Leicester in 1996-1997".  Have I died and the University of Leicester turned into CERN? I doubt this is even a case of WP:TOOSOON. Britishfinance (talk) 10:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete it's waaaay WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:40, 26 February 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.