Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Byford


 * 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. SNOW Keep. Nominator is reminded of WP:BEFORE. Taking an article to AfD within a few minutes of creation is highly unlikely to be productive. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 10:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Sarah Byford

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of significance Itsalleasy (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This article is one of the few recommended by the IoP in our editathons on women in science, see . Being on PHIAC and an editor of the BJP should be sufficient to meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. I note this AfD was created within 3 minutes of article creation and within a minute of the previous edit, while it was obviously being worked on; this appears overly hasty. I believe "no indication of significance" is somewhat insulting on a BLP for Dr Byford considering her evident impact on her field and the bibliography included before this AfD was created.
 * If you wish to improve the article, you may wish to check the 113 publications listed for her at ResearchGate. --Fæ (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Nomination is perverse. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. High citations in her Google scholar profile demonstrate a pass of WP:PROF. And admonish the nominator for the WP:BITEy nomination and failure to apply WP:BEFORE. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as per Eppstein. Another time-wasting nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2014 (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.