Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Pensworth Reagor


 * 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. The keep arguments on sourcing were by assertion and were refuted by detailed discussion of sources by the delete side Spartaz Humbug! 06:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Mary Pensworth Reagor

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is mostly built off one source. The TCU Magazine source is a student publication. The Reagor Lynn Method has coverage from Lockheed Martin press releases and not much else. The subject fails WP:NACADEMIC. Kbabej (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Very weak keep. As a program that honors less than 1% of the Lockheed technical staff the Lockheed Technical Fellow honor appears to be close to the sort of thing we count for WP:PROF, although obviously not in as academic a context. And in being based on the Agnes Scott College profile and the TCU magazine piece, the article has a plausible case for the multiple in-depth sources required by WP:GNG, but independence is dubious in both cases because of her alumna status. There's also a little more coverage at  and  but as a blog post and a press release from her employer they don't much strengthen the case for GNG. This source is a little better. And this one is primary for the award she won, but independent of her almae matres and employer. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I can see the relationship to WP:PROF as her research has made a significant impact to fuzzy logic as seen in her award from the WIA. I believe that if fuzzy logic meets WP:GNG then her connection to the topic through awards shows a notable status. Any coverage which is dubious is really support via WP:PSTS to the core connections to her notability. The WIA award was presented to her from the Associate Director of Technology for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Bioforce12 (talk) 04:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:SOCKSTRIKE; see Sockpuppet investigations/Milesr3. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak delete. Notability is not inherited from that of fuzzy logic.  The method that she invented has little coverage, and what little there is is incidental.  I'm uncertain whether internal company award (even from a company as big as Lockheed Martin) is more like WP:NPROF C3 or C5.  Whichever, the case is weak, and should be supported by some evidence of impact.  I don't see much mention of the Lynn Reagor method outside of profiles of the subject; Datascape is harder to search for, but I didn't find anything.  I'm watching this AfD in case better evidence of notability is uncovered. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Seems to be known only in-company. GS cites don't come to much. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC).
 * Keep There is a couple of uni articles on her, there is a gbook ref, magazine ref and I think there is probably more if a deep search is done. I think passes WP:THREE, WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV.  scope_creep Talk  11:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Unless winning the annual Outstanding Achievement Award from the Women in Aerospace organization grants notability on its own, I'm not seeing how she's notable. The university articles and Lockheed awards are not independent and the only other thing mentioned is that award.  She has only a few citations in Google Scholar.  I'll wait to vote until others have had a chance to enlighten me. Papaursa (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm thinking along the same lines as Papaursa, but verging towards a weak delete. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I did another search for sources and I still couldn't find significant independent coverage that shows me that she meets WP:GNG or any other notability criteria. She definitely fails to meet WP:NPROF and I don't believe her award  is sufficient to confer automatic notability.  All independent coverage is related to the one award (WP:BIO1E). Papaursa (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment that Lockheed Martin Fellows were one of the classes of people used to seed the initial class of SIAM fellows. (She apparently wasn't a SIAM member, so isn't a fellow, but otherwise would be.)  This supports David Eppstein's WP:NPROF C3 very weak keep argument.  I'm not persuaded by this in the near absence of evidence for C1 (which C3 is supposed to be a shortcut for), but perhaps others will be. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I agree with most comments above that the question of whether she passes any particular notability guideline is borderline, but unlike most BLPs in that situation there is clearly enough sourcing out there to write a good short biography. And that's what the article is: a short biography whose deletion would not improve the encyclopedia in any identifiable way.  Since I should probably hang some WP:JARGON on this argument, I am saying that I agree with scope_creep that the sourcing here meets WP:SIGCOV. --JBL (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Would you please show me the significant independent coverage of her that is besides her award (hence my mention of BIO1E)? I'm willing to change my vote, but I'd like someone to show me the coverage required to show notability.  I find an unsupported claim that "there is clearly enough sourcing out there to write a good short biography" unconvincing and not part of any WP notability criteria.  WP:ILIKEIT is not enough of an argument for me. Papaursa (talk) 01:09, 10 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.