Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louise Giblin (chemist)


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Louise Giblin (chemist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No reliable sources found for establishing notability, as tagged since August 2008. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk,  contribs ) 20:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Preventing the log of April 1 from overfilling
 * Delete To be notable she would have to pass the notability for academics. The twists and turns of her career just mean that she never did so. For that matter, I don't think Alfred W. Bosworth does either. Wikipedia arguably favors professors over full time researchers, but I just don't see how either of these individuals would pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - does not meet notability criteria for academics. She was co-author of a couple papers that may have had an influence on formulation of infant formula but connection is tenuous. Glendoremus (talk) 05:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -KAP03(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions &bull;&#32;Email) 14:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. Four well-cited papers. Not sure that is enough for WP:Prof. Can GNG help with baby formula sources? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC).
 * Delete. This appears to be another sad case where patriarchal attitudes pushed a talented young woman out of science and then the men around her took credit for her accomplishments. But we're not here to right great wrongs, and the sources we have left from those days really don't support much, other than "she was a co-author on some related publications". We certainly don't have any sources that actually credit her as the primary inventor of similac, the strongest claim to notability in the article. The source that looks like it should be the best one, Schuman's concise history of infant formula, doesn't actually mention her (we use it in the article only for an unrelated fact about where similac got its name). This leaves us with only Rossiter (on her dinner protest) as the only secondary source; it's not enough for WP:GNG. And the full title of the most significant of her publications makes clear that it is only one of at least ten papers by her coauthor Bosworth (the only one credited as the inventor in the actual similac article); what makes this paper stand out among Bosworth's others? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 10 April 2017 (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.