Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Cooper Olivieri


 * 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. Insufficient indication that she meets WP:GNG or WP:NPROF at this time. RL0919 (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Laura Cooper Olivieri

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This cardiologist does not appear to meet the notability requirements for researchers (WP:NPROF). There's one mini write-up in the New Scientist which I'd argue does not suffice on its own; the other main source is the alumni magazine of her alma mater, which has a natural selection bias. Cites for the main showcase paper are in the nineties, which is good but not on the "substantial impact on discipline" level. Don't think we are there yet :/ -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak delete I agree with Elmidae's assessment of the sources. I also have an additional concern about the papers, because they are attributed to a Laura J Olivieri as opposed to Laura C Olivieri, without any indication in cited sources that she goes by this name. If Laura J is a pseudonym of the subject, the notability would appear to be borderline: based on a Google Scholar search, Olivieri has 3 papers above 90 citations, four more above 30, but then the number of citations per paper quickly trails off resulting in an h-index of only 9 if I counted correctly. signed,Rosguill talk 21:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Does this author affiliation look convincing? Perhaps she had a second given name like "Jane"? Certainly doesn't seem to have published as "LC", just as "L" or "LJ". Pam  D  09:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)  Forgot to ping.  Pam  D  09:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , honestly, based on the rather detailed list of achievements and organizational affiliations accorded to Olivieri, I would guess that it's likely the same person. I'm still on the fence as to overall notability, though. signed,Rosguill talk 02:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't think WP:NPROF #1 ("significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources") is met, and there are no claims of notability per other NPROF criteria. GregorB (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, Being a cardiologist does not mean she meets notability. Alex-h (talk) 07:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete There is pretty much nothing in the article stating why she is notable (perhaps because she isn't). What makes her special from other cardiologists? William2001(talk) 01:28, 1 July 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.