Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly See

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. WP:TOOSOON to meet WP:NPROF. Will restore to draft on request if anyone wants to work on it in the future. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly See

[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)

Not notable academic and scientist. Article claims she won some award, which doesn't have a wikipedia article, is a claim made by the subject herself in a You tube video. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By "some award", I guess you refer to the Science Award in Electrochemistry, which is cited with the news article on the BASF website (not the YouTube video). There is only one winner annually. She has also been named a Beckman Young Investigator, now clearly mentioned in the lede, which is only awarded to a handful of academics – an award which does have its own Wikipedia page. Jesswade88 (talk) 03:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She appears to be a very promising early career researcher but the current article doesn't provide evidence that she yet meets our notability guidelines. ElKevbo (talk) 03:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The citations are on the low side for a higher citation field, and the awards are early career recognitions only. If she keeps it up, she'll likely make WP:NPROF, but not at this time. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't yet had time to evaluate this particular case as fully as I should, but I'll confess, I don't really understand the "only early-career awards" dismissal in general. Arguably, what matters is how much a person stands out from among other researchers at the same career stage. We wouldn't delete an article on a chess prodigy because they're only seven years old. What matters is the degree of recognition conferred by those early-career awards and how exclusive they are. If a person is documentably top-notch among early-career scientists, then it's already not too soon. XOR'easter (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the early career awards meet WP:NPROF C2. A terminal associate professor who showed early promise (including winning such awards) should not be Wikipedia notable. Since notability is not temporary, the early career academic who is showing promise (as evidenced by awards of this type) shouldn't be either. That said, the early career awards do not detract from notability either, and if the subject has reached notability under WP:NPROF C1, or has received an award that does meet WP:NPROF C2, then we should keep the article. From what I understand of the citation levels in chemistry, her citation record doesn't show this, but I'll listen carefully if anyone gives evidence as to why it does. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is better held at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). Briefly, my interpretation of that part of the guideline is a way for us to "take the long view" of notability and focus on people who have made lasting contributions and impact. Of course, if someone doesn't meet those guidelines then we can always apply the general notability guidelines if there are sufficient sources so we're not hemmed in if an assistant professor has other ways of meeting our notability guidelines. ElKevbo (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not create articles on people on the way to notability, only on people who actually get there, and she is not there yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:ACADEMIC is not met: assistant professor, and just a single article with considerable citations. A private industry award to boot. I heavily lean towards delete at this time, but she's got a long career ahead of her for sure. PK650 (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above discussion, WP:PROF, WP:OUTCOMES, and WP:TOOSOON. Se does not pass our standards for academics, not having met any of the criteria. We almost never agree here at AfD that an assistant professor is notable, and only rarely an associate professor. She is too early in her career to assess her impact. Bearian (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2020 (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.