Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simone Badal-McCreath


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 04:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Simone Badal-McCreath

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

not actually notable by WPPROF, and the refs are local publicity only  DGG ( talk ) 07:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I'd argue that the Elsevier Foundation Award meets Criteria 2 in WPPROF. Also, the Jamaica Observer is a national, not local. Lirazelf (talk) 11:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment There is also coverage in US. News – so an independant reliable source to add to the list. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 11:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Five additional sources have now been added so Simone Badal-McCreath clearly has much wider notability than purely local. Stinglehammer (talk) 12:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I concur with Lirazelf. The additional sources added after nomination of AfD confirm WPPROF notability. Thsmi002 (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment How can the Elsevier Foundation award be considered to be established as having sufficiently prestige to meet notability, as this is the first time the awards has been given?  DGG ( talk ) 19:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep there is enough independent coverage to support WP:GNG. It does not matter if the Elsevier Foundation award is any good or not. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't think the Elsevier award is intrinsically notable, but it appears to have generated enough coverage to pass the WP:GNG. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: I'm not familiar with WP:PROF, I will take a look at it but it seems to pass WP:GNG. I have added additional sources to cement the claim to notability.  Janet-O (talk) 13:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly meets GNG. Sadads (talk) 13:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep passes GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep – Meets WP:BASIC per a review of available sources. North America1000 02:12, 14 November 2017 (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.