Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Hawkins


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Michelle Hawkins

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Dr. Hawkins seems awesome and everything I want in an amazing public servant. Unfortunately, after trying my best to prove otherwise, I don't think she presently meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. agt x 03:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Shellwood (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I can't access Washington Post articles, so can anyone say how much coverage the article cited gives her? Also this one 1 CT55555 (talk) 11:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The profile of 6 women atmospheric scientists devotes about 2-3 paragraphs to each, and 3 paragraphs to Hawkins. The other article is not mainly about her, but quotes her brief-ish-ly. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Two to three paragraphs in the Washington Post isn't very deep coverage, but it isn't trivial either, and it's the Washington Post. Her award likewise isn't a nobel prize, but nor is it a pay for play thing or something trivial at all. She is quoted a lot in media, not just in the Washington Post article mentioned above. Google scholar has articles she co-authored that have citation counts of 150, 123, 92 etc - not incredible, but also still something. Each of these factors alone would not establish notability, as I see it but combined add up to enough to create at least a start-level article and sufficiently notable to justify having an article.  CT55555 (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Lady in Scotland with the same name. I used her name and added "weather" and got a few hits in Gbooks . Something in Forbes, which just looks like a rehash of the Washington Post article . One mention in the Black Engineer magazine . She's been a key-note speaker at a few conferences, one in Jstor. I think she's just barely notable. I see nothing wrong with keeping a high level woman in a government job to help counter gender bias on Wikipedia. Inclined to leave it/keep. Oaktree b (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep There isn't particularly deep coverage of her, however, she does hold a relatively high-level appointment and she appears to have a relatively solid publication record that would qualify her as WP:ACADEMIC anyway.00:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. I see little evidence of WP:NPROF -- the top-cited papers appear to have around 30 citations.  (The similarly-named person in another field could cause a little confusion here.)  This leaves WP:BASIC.  I think that a couple paragraphs in the Washington Post is well short of WP:SIGCOV, and I don't see any other reliable sources that are beyond glancing mentions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. She's a government meteorologist, not an academic, so I think WP:PROF is the wrong criterion and we should evaluate her by WP:GNG. (Also, most of the citations in Google Scholar by "Michelle Hawkins" are by a different person, a British bird scientist; the American meteorologist's academic publications definitely are not enough for WP:PROF.) The coverage of Hawkins at, , and is all I think reliable, and in-depth, but as government publications about a government employee maybe not independent enough. As well, we have a three-paragraph profile on her in the Washington Post (clearly in-depth, reliable, and independent), another profile from ArcGIS (in-depth and independent but of unclear reliability), US Black Engineer (reliable and independent but not in-depth), UMBC (reliable and independent but not in-depth). Really there's only one source that ticks all three boxes of reliability, depth, and independence but so many others come close that it pushes me towards the keep side. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2022 (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.