Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rose Crichton


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Rose Crichton

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not to be confused with RR Crichton, who is a widely cited biochemist, Rose Crichton is currently a lab technician, and as such fails NACADEMIC, particularly criteria 5. As for criteria 1 of said guideline, she has no widely cited articles. In fact, not even her recent PhD thesis has been cited, which by the way is too recent (2014) to even consider her impact in her field, save extraordinary circumstances, which in this case do not exist. Therefore she is not notable per WP:ACADEMIC, nor is there coverage in independent sources to warrant notability per WP:GNG. PK650 (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete The author couldn't even be bothered to try to assert notability here. No substantive sources about her. Reywas92Talk 04:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article presents no evidence for academic notability, which is unlikely in any case for someone of her position. I looked for her publications in Google Scholar (made difficult by her publishing under "R. Crichton" rather than something more sensible like spelling out her first name); if they have been cited at all, it appears to be only in the single digits, far from enough for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:TOOSOON at best. Comment that the entirely unreferenced personal details make it look like the originating editor is closely connected to the subject. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. -- Kinu t/c 21:48, 15 January 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.