Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayorkor Korsah

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 speedy keep. Once more I will defer to David E. Overall , I still think non-notable , but this might be borderline enough. DGG ( talk ) 16:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ayorkor Korsah

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not notable. Only significantly cited paper; not enough to show her an authority in her field according to WP:PROF. The awards are almost every one of them routine undergraduate and graduate student scholarships. PhiBetaKappa and Tau Beta Phi are not societies whose membership implies notability . May be notable some day, but not yet. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is currently very badly sourced, but continuing coverage of her work in international major media (Wired 2012; Noticia al Dia 2015; CNN 2015; MentalFloss 2017) makes a case for WP:GNG and WP:PROF#C7 (substantial impact outside academia). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C7/WP:GNG. We can add Popular Mechanics to the list [1]. XOR'easter (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment: {{U}David Eppstein}}, Pam D, do you think the awards section for undergraduate and graduate scholarship should be retained? Do you think we should add such sections for all academics, because anyone vaguely notable will have certainly received such routine awards?

Keep per Eppstein. Montanabw^(talk) 22:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Have tidied up the refs a bit and added a couple - but I suggest we need an article on the Tribeca Disruptive Innovation Award (currently a dodgy redirect to an article which doesn't mention it) if anyone feels like it - see https://www.disruptorawards.com/about-continued-info/, and it would have a lot of incoming links, plenty of mentions in en.wiki articles already. PamD 10:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment: David Eppstein, Pam D, do you think the awards section for undergraduate and graduate scholarship should be retained? If you do, do you think we should add such sections for all academics, because anyone vaguely notable will have certainly received such routine awards, & it can generally be documented? DGG ( talk ) 20:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. I removed most of that section. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.