Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mel Young

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. ✗plicit 23:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Young

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not meet WP:SCHOLAR. She appears to be a pre-early-career researcher working on her doctorate, and mild local coverage of the species she studies does not make her notable. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 18:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 18:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For the reasons outlined by Ari T. Benchaim. –Ploni (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Biology, and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am sure this article was contributed in good faith but I found no evidence that the subject meets WP:PROF at this time. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: On further investigation, the subject appears mainly to publish as "Melanie J. Young" or "Melanie Young"; I found some co-authored research papers with up to ~20 citations: insufficient to meet my interpretation of WP:PROF, but more than the very low citations I was finding for "Mel Young". Espresso Addict (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as she passes WP:GNG. The article needs expanding but on a quick bit of research I found she does have coverage over at least a 6 year period in two significant (New Zealand) national newspapers, a number of conservation websites, and a minor mention in The Guardian as an advocate for the conservation of yellow eyed penquins. NealeWellington (talk) 08:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have added several more references and details. She is regularly cited by the main media outlets in New Zealand on the topic of yellow-eyed penguins to the point where I think she would meet WP:SCHOLAR on the basis of items 1 and 7 in her field of research. NealeWellington (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per NealeWellington, although I am concerned about the fact that her page reads as promotional to me, particularly the part that lists her papers. Judging by the sources in the article currently, I think the subject is notable, but not everything that is currently on the page is notable/appropriate. A shorter article would suffice. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 09:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quite happy for someone to trim the list of papers - it was simply a dump of everything she was invovled in to prove that she was more than your average phD student when it comes to her topic and to give her some credibility. NealeWellington (talk) 10:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Papers don't give you 'credibility', least of all notability. I still fail to see how someone who hasn't even completed her PhD can meet WP:SCHOLAR in the absence of either some other significant achievement or a field in which a PhD is not essential. Her advocacy might make her notable as an activist (advocacy is not a scholarly activity, it is a social/political activity), but her coverage for that is not all that extensive. There's a bit of WP:NOTYET about this. In the end, we have to decide whether a person is notable right now, and in my view, she is not, even if she looks to be well on the way towards becoming so eventually. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 13:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I feel that there's more subtlety at play here. Her publication record that Neale provided spans over 10 years, which is highly unusual for a PhD student and I don't think she can be compared to others like-for-like. I agree that I find it difficult to warrant her article under WP:SCHOLAR for academics per se, but I am not sure how significant conservation projects (which Neale has provided evidence of significant coverage over a long timespan) should be weighted. I do feel it's a borderline WP:TOOSOON case and could go either way. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 09:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To have even a chance of meeting WP:SCHOLAR clause 1, it's being cited by others than counts, not just publishing. The key word is "independent". -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Having studied clause 7 of WP:SCHOLAR more closely, I'm striking my vote to be Neutral. Seems that the floor is higher than I originally interpreted it as. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 12:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Certainly does not meet WP:NPROF, and not convinced meets WP:GNG as is mostly local, but could be convinced otherwise. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how the subject meets WP:SNG, and I see no coverage of the subject herself, but instead of her topic of study, where she sometimes comments on. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 19:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely does not meet NPROF, and the claim for GNG is based on light coverage of studies she has been involved in or on the species she studies (with quotes from her in her capacity as a ranger or PhD student). No in-depth commentary on her whatsoever. JoelleJay (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not enough notable that criteria 1 of WP:NPROF may be applied. She is presently pursuing her doctorate so we possibly need an exceptional achievement otherwise. Cirton (talk) 12:50, 15 May 2022 (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.