Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Sullivan-Beckers


 * 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. (non-admin closure) buidhe 01:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Laura Sullivan-Beckers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

All coverage of the subject is in relation to a viral news story about her co-discovering a species of insect with her daughter (WP:BLP1E). She's had a few moderately well-cited publications but it doesn't seem that she meets WP:NACADEMIC on their strengths. So, unless discovering a single insect species is enough to meet NACADEMIC, I don't think that we have a case for notability here. signed,Rosguill talk 05:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. signed,Rosguill talk 05:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. signed,Rosguill talk 05:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. signed,Rosguill talk 05:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm going to say keep because the discovery of a new species isn't just one event, it's a scientific achievement. Science lasts longer than going viral. The fact that multiple news outlets picked up on it gives her general notability. ⌚️ (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Assistant professor position doesn't make her notable, current number of publications of hers and their citations don't make her notable, but the media attention surround the new species probably just about does. Kj cheetham (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per two above rationales. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 09:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep She meets GNG as scientific discoveries are not merely news events, and I believe she also meets criterion 7 of WP:NACADEMIC "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" re: her discovery of a new species. Note that "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." She may also satisfy criterion 1 of NACADEMIC "Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline. In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question". Besides this, her published works go beyond run-of-the-mill scholarly works, one of the more significant might be her chapter in The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Evolutionary Psychology. Altogether, this seems to be a case for keeping. IphisOfCrete (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that the argument above about Criterion 7 and the Oxford Handbook is valid, but my impression was that discovering new species is the bread and butter of entomology, and I'm skeptical that it's as significant as editors are making it out to be. FWIW, the paper that actually publishes the discovery of the insect in question is, which does not appear to have accrued any citations yet. signed,Rosguill talk 17:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, if she was a random person it would be a one event circumstance. But this is her field, that's why it's an act of notability even in serendipity. ⌚️ (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "my impression was that discovering new species is the bread and butter of entomology" Discovery certainly is the bread and butter of science in general, I'm not sure that as an encyclopedia Wikipedia should start excluding entries on that basis. After all, it's WP:NOTPAPER.IphisOfCrete (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep I agree that the discovery of the treehopper makes her pass WP:NACADEMIC. Also just wanted to note that a similar discussion took place not too long ago in another AfD. Of course, each AfD is independent, but I thought it might be useful to link it here. Achaea (talk) 12:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * From reading through that AfD, despite the chorus of people insisting that the discovery of a single species is notable, I'm only more convinced that that position is mistaken. Virtually every researcher working in entomology or herpetology is going to rack up multiple-to-dozens of discoveries of species over their career; thousands of new species are discovered every year. If this is where we're setting the bar for NACADEMIC in these fields, it is way, way lower than the standards that we hold for virtually any other research discipline, as this standard is only marginally harder to meet than "publish a single paper in a peer reviewed journal". signed,Rosguill talk 18:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, will this development of apparent consensus, someone being wikinotable for discovering one species, (although probably also needing broader consensus from relevant projects?) require adjustment to the relevant notability guidelines (and possibly a footnote added to the species common outcome)? Coolabahapple (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don't think discovering one rare species will require a change to the prof test, because "significant discovery" is somewhat subjective. Notwithstanding, this particular discovery has garnered significant coverage, both academic and popular. Bearian (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NACADEMIC criterium #1. gidonb (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NACADEMIC. -- Toughpigs (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2020 (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.