Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynnae Quick


 * 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The result was Withdrawn. Ignoring meatpuppetry with no rationale, I think sufficient rationale has been provided here so I am withdrawing my nomination. Initially, I had missed the significant coverage in CNN: this source is what pushes me over the edge from delete to keep, as it isn't specialist news and mentions her name repeatedly. I will now be going to the article to clean it up. I encourage those monitoring this discussion that are new to Wikipedia to read WP:TUTORIAL, if they wish to edit Wikipedia in the future. Sam-2727 (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure) Sam-2727 (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Lynnae Quick

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Sorry, but I don't see notability under WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG here. Publishing papers and getting news coverage of those papers I don't think is enough to demonstrate notability. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notability criteria for academics state that the researcher has made a significant impact on their field. Dr. Quick's publication record and her service on several NASA missions, all of which have gained press coverage, point to the impact of her work. Publishing papers and eliciting independent news coverage is evidence of notability. WebMZ (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , the thing is though that most academics have this kind of press coverage. NASA is very good at getting press releases out. It's hard to gauge significant impact from just those. I think to rise to the level of "significant impact," there needs to be evidence (from reliable sources) that the work stands out amongst work of other academics in her field. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * that's actually not true. The vast majority of papers that are published are never covered by the press. And the reason NASA is good at attracting press coverage is because their work is high impact. By virtue of her being the lead author on several NASA publications, Dr. Quick has demonstrated her notability. Not everyone can be a NASA researcher after all! WebMZ (talk) Webmz (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I'm doing ok for myself in academia; I get specialist press attention about once a decade, give or take. This is clearly high impact research which is getting picked up repeatedly by high-quality independent news sources. DWeir (talk) 23:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * and, I respctfully disagree. My colleagues and I get press attention for work connected to NASA, but I wouldn't consider myself notable. However, see my comment below which is why I'm withdrawing this nomination. Sam-2727 (talk) 01:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * (in short, because some coverage goes beyond the trivial mentions I saw earlier) Sam-2727 (talk) 01:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Enough sources and seriousness. Yug (talk)  22:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , could you elaborate (I don't want this to seem like an attack or anything. I just want to understand which sources specifically indicate notability)? Sam-2727 (talk) 22:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I would keep the article, there is notability. Laz~enwiki (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC) — Laz~enwiki (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Well referenced for a starting page and easily meets notability requirements. Catwhoorg (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The work of Dr. Quick is notable by virtue not only of the significant number of research projects she either leads or is engaged in, but also I have read about her work on the popular astronomy/space website UniverseToday . The work she is progressing is extremely interesting and topical given all the current and future planned missions. I'd like to see more of this kind of article as it promotes careers in science to our school students as well as of course being an important public record. Grunthus (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC) — Grunthus (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please Keep! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.140.255.232 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep This is serious work, and exoplanet hunting is a worldwide endeavor, where actors and contributors need to be acknowledged. Press coverage is very local, but the mission of wikipedia is global, and allows the dissemination of that kind of research. The relative junior status of the researcher provides a way to see how participating organizations are currently inter-related. Awojdyla (talk) 23:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep! Keep! Please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6EF0:1CD0:245B:98C1:8C77:3E3 (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.181.80.27 (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C0:C001:59B0:A8:ECF6:97B2:81E7 (talk) 22:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Valuable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:1400:B590:1006:C6A7:47EC:2D55 (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG. The nominator's argument is that publishing papers and getting press coverage is routine, which is not the case. I think that the CNN and New York Post coverage demonstrate notability; it's just not true that any random academic paper gets headline coverage. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep on at least WP:NACADEMIC ground 7 (repeatedly quoted in conventional media, e.g. CNN, Scientific American, Space.com, New York Post), as an expert and first-author on multiple, separate, impactful academic outputs) and possibly 1, as well. DWeir (talk) 23:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak keep based on current mainstream coverage of results of the latest paper . She certainly does not satifsy notability requirements based on her citation record (this is not a "significant impact on the field"), and the ASoP paper is too fresh to have garnered any citations yet - but uptake in mainstream media on this is probably already good enough for WP:NPROF #7.


 * I'd also like to note that I'm quite disgusted with all the canvassed meatpuppetry on display above. If people are starting to get the impression that this type of uninformed clamouring has an impact on how decisions are made on WP, then we are in for some fun times at AfD. And some of the arguments from established editors who should know better are also quite baffling. We are not an academic incubator or career accelerator, people! -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * with all due respect, it would do all of us much good if we can just focus on the arguments and justifications provided here so far (and clearly articulate why they do or don't work). Meatpuppetry is a failed proposal and the canvassing Tweet has already been deleted. There are more substantial arguments here than "upvote" posts. Please keep the discussion civil and don't bite newcomers. FlybellFly (talk) 00:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well. As for "substantial arguments", I see five pointless pushbutton votes, five !votes that clearly have no clue what we are looking for re demonstrated notability in an academic, and three that seem to know what they are talking about. Bluntly, that is a crap demographic for decision-making. I'm quite happy to focus on the article-related arguments, but we are seeing a massive uptick of these crowd steamrolling attempts in the last few weeks, and unless they get called out and if necessary dealt with, we will be in trouble in the near future. So no, I'm not going to quietly ignore it. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I just found the twitter discussion. Just to clear up some potential misleading parts of it. Generally, when articles are nominated for deletion soon after being created, it is through the WP:NPP process. Specifically, I patrol all articles closely related to astronomy, which is how I came across this article. The arguments here (presented by and others have convinced me that this is a weakly notable article. The passing coverage I saw when reviewing has been superseded in other sources (when I reviewed the article, most of the sources I looked at were primary sources i.e. her website). But Elmidae is right in that most of the votes here say, in essence, "the subject of this article is notable" without tying to specific guidelines. Most people believe that Wikipedia edits based off of "intuition" or "how much one likes the subject," but this is simply not the case. Wikipedia isn't the place for advocacy (well, for the most part): that should happen elsewhere and Wikipedia will respond to the coverage of that in reliable sources. Sam-2727 (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I know this discussion is "closed" but one more thing: the notion that most articles that are nominated for deletion are people deserving of Wikipedia articles isn't correct: most biography articles I nominate for deletion and others too are poorly disguised paid-for articles of white male businessmen, at least based on my experiences. Sam-2727 (talk) 01:27, 26 June 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.