Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynika Strozier


 * 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. Consensus is sufficiently notable for keep. (non-admin closure)  scope_creep Talk  11:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Lynika Strozier

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

While this is a tragedy indeed, this person holds a job that thousands of other people hold and is really just an early career professional with a some publications. If this were a notable article then every professor in America would be considered notable for Wikipedia. A plethora of obits and some local articles are not indicaitvie of notability and although the person is impressive they have not even come close to having a substantial impact in their field at this point in their career. They may have been on their way, but haven't really scratched the surface RandomEditor7623 (talk) 13:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. Fails WP:NSCHOLAR, however she had a full profile back in 2012 in the Chicago Tribune, some additional non-trivial coverage in the interim, and very significant obit publishing (New York Times, The Scientist, many Chicago outlets including TV). Absent the significant obit publishing she probably wouldn't have passed GNG, as a single in-depth item is not sufficient. With the obit carried so widely, this is probably just over the threshold of GNG.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 14:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The article has numerous sources that specifically focus on the subject and easily establish notability. ElKevbo (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I would like to point out (for whatever its worth) that the nominator has a grand total of 3 edits on Wikipedia at this time, all of which are connected to this AFD. I don't know about you, but the first three edits I made to Wikipedia certainly weren't to delete something. The article should be kept because the person clearly meets WP:GNG. I implore the nominator to go create some content instead of starting your Wikipedia career with a deletion. --Krelnik (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG, rather than WP:PROF. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete It doesn't matter that this is my first edits under this screename and I have edited under another. The case for this person is weak at best.  Answer this:  Had they not passed of COVID and had a NYT obit, would they have a page?  The answer is an obvious 'NO.'  This is the only reason a page is even being considered.  This is an early career scientist.  There are many of those people living and doing work that don't come close to notability.  This person does not come close to meeting the academics guidelines for notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.99.124.70 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "It doesn't matter that this is my first edits under this screename" suggests that this is a !vote by the nominator. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that the way this is worded, seems like its the same user as the nominator. first edits under this screename and I have edited under another also raises the question about why they are not using their previous account/screen name. — Maile  (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep by exactly the same logic: they did die of COVID and do have an NYT obit, which twinned with the prior coverage establishes general notability. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets GNG. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep by the unscientific rubric that I've heard of this person via Facebook independently of any coverage listed here. That suggests a level of notability/awareness beyond the norm - coupled with the coverage of her death I think a keep vote is well-warranted. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - The subject of the article meets general notability criteria WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Not notable under WP:PROF perhaps, but is notable by virtue of independant sources being available. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep since there are ample independent, reliable sources. In the same way that people are not (generally) inherently notable, neither are they inherently non-notable. Thincat (talk) 10:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Snow keep - Calling for an early closure as per WP:SNOW. The only delete here is from the nominator, and the nominator is a single purpose account, created solely for this nomination.  Geo Swan (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Snow keep - Notable and inspiring. — Maile (talk) 00:29, 2 July 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.