Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharifa Love-Rutledge


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Sharifa Love-Rutledge

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I understand that this goes against the trend, could get me exposed to false accusations of all kinds of criminal behavior, and I could have left this somebody else to deal with, however, I feel that as a new page patroller I have to nominate this for deletion. This academic, although being black and being a woman, fails WP:PROF by a wide margin at this point. I do not see her passing WP:GNG, currently the article in fact has zero independent reliable sources. Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Hi there, thank you so much for the note and for creating a discussion as opposed to speedy deletion! I would love the chance to dispute this nomination for multiple reasons. First, she meets the criteria of an academic (ie she is a "faculty members (such as professors) at colleges or universities"). Second, I have used "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses" (from the notability page of Wiki) and thus these sources I have used to discuss her research are reliable sources. Third, Love-Rutledge has "had a substantial impact outside of academia in their academic capacity" as her work directly informed the change of guidelines in the European Food and Safety Authority Guidelines. Fourth, she was a McNair Scholar, this is a Federally awarded honor (honor at the national level). Fifth, the citations that reference the biography of her life are published on multiple institutional pages, which I have cited, and the fact that this story is written on multiple Institutional pages (even institutions she did not attend), I thought this signified it was a secondary source. I have also cited the institutions where she won awards (including her listed as one of the top 100 Black Scientists in America by CellPress), which Wikipedia says is a sufficient source for citing an award. I would love to discuss further, but I also feel that her story and contributions to science are notable enough to be shared on Wikipedia. Microglia145 (talk) 07:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will generally not respond further and let others decide on the nomination, but I want to remark that WP:PROF does not mean that (i) all faculty members of all universities are notable (and in this case, University of Alabama is not a top university, and she is only an assistant professor); (ii) that all authors of publications in peer-review journals are notable (this would make notable suddenly hundreds of thousands of people who had contributed to some research while being for example undergraduate students and not have made any impact outside of one or two routine publications). Btw the article is clearly not eligible for speedy deletion, if you ever see a comparable article nominated for speedy or, even worse, speedy deleted on notability grounds, please let the community know at one of the noticeboards.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete: doesn’t come close to WP:GNG Vipulsshah (talk) 08:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC) SOCKSTRIKE. Britishfinance (talk) 11:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment just noticed this was nominated for deletion under an hour of the article being created... Kj cheetham (talk) 08:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I was patrolling the queue of new articles. I usually do it every morning.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Only assistant prof - I'd be looking for a named chair or "Distinguished Professor" appointment. Please see WP:PROF. First black women to gain a PhD in a particular department at a particular uni isn't overly notable to me (though is certainly an achievement), first in the uni overall maybe would be. Publishing citation record is not particularly impressive, especially when just considering the first or last author papers. So it falls to how notable the awards are, and to me they mostly look like academic scholarships and minor awards. It needs more than a passing mention in something published other than the winner's institution or the awarding institution. Either of those might prove it was real, but doesn't show it's notability. Winning a national-level award also won by many others doesn't make it prestigious. Most of the awards don't have their own wikipages I assume. To me, "substantial impact" needs to be much more than a one-time incorporation into an organisation's guidelines. Much as I don't like to for any women scientist, I'll have to say delete at this time, as it's WP:TOOSOON really. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Reluctantly as well. Looking at the criteria for notability of academics, options 3-8 clearly don't apply in this case. For research impact (option 1) it's hard to make the case quantitatively based on citations/h-index. Qualitatively, the discovery referenced in the current article's summary paragraph about chromium comes from a paper on which she was a middle author. I did go to the journal and downloaded the PDF to confirm it wasn't two co-first authors with asterisks. That leaves criteria 2, the award path. The most notable award listed is the McNair scholarship which is for undergraduates selected based on a combination of academic potential and coming from a disadvantaged background. I just don't think it satisfies criteria 2. MoneciousTriffid (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lots of Wikipuffery but no evidence of significant academic accomplishments of the type needed to pass WP:PROF (multiple heavily cited publications, distinguished professor rank, etc). The only thing that stands out as an unusual level of attention is the name-drop in "100 inspiring black scientists in America" but that's only a name-drop on what is essentially a forum posting, not the sort of reliably-published in-depth coverage needed for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm going to offer a comment that is meant fully in the spirit of WP:HERE, as someone who sincerely respects and has had quite positive interactions at one point or another with almost everyone in this discussion, and I really hope that you will see it as a good faith suggestion aimed squarely at keeping a productively collaborative atmosphere for improving the encyclopedia. I looked around for a long time to find guildelines/precedent about where to put this comment (on the AfD Talk page maybe?) but I couldn't find anything relevant, so please feel free to move it somewhere else if there's a procedural rule about where concerns like this should be raised. I am worried that the framing of this nomination pushes WP:CIVIL, and that the text of it should be reconsidered. What is "this academic, although being black and being a woman, fails WP:PROF" supposed to mean? Is the reference to a "trend" meant to assert that AfD discussants increasingly apply lower standards to black people and/or to women? Writing in the text of a nomination that a deletion discussion may include accusations of "all kinds of criminal behavior" is at least not in the spirit of WP:AGF/WP:AFDEQ, but I worry that in the context of recent discussions it could be interpreted as a pointed reference to specific editors who have taken part in the overall pleasantly collegial discussions at The Village Pump and in some recent AfDs. I am concerned that opening an AfD by talking about how it will make you the target of libel and drawing specific attention to the gender and race of the article subject makes it extremely difficult to build a WP:CONSENSUS. - Astrophobe  (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It means that AfD nominators are likely to get accused of bad faith when they nominate for deletion articles on people from underrepresented groups. Exactly as you appear to be doing now. And that the nominator hoped to pre-empt that accusation by demonstrating their good faith and by tiptoeing around the nomination rather than being more blunt, but as your long comment demonstrates it doesn't seem to have worked, because the very act of trying to be responsive to these issues is seen as problematic. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Then I apologise for that appearance. I'm happy to plainly state that I have no doubt that the nomination was raised because the nominator believes in good faith that the article does not meet WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. - Astrophobe  (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, thanks David Eppstein. There are enough people around happy to accuse me in racism and sexism, and my real name is easy to find. Fortunately I am not based in the US, but I can still can get into serious trouble if this gets spread by social media in the corresponding mode and for example picked up by mainstream media.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Probably worth including in the WikiProject Women scientists list of AfDs too? Kj cheetham (talk) 08:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but does anybody know how to do it? The article is edited exclusively by a bot.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Good question... I've tagged the article's talk page with the project tag, so let's see if the bot picks that up on it's next daily run. Kj cheetham (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nowhere near passing WP:Prof. Maybe in 10 or 20 years time. Not enough for WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:13, 17 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.