Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samantha Hall

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} 06:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Hall

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

Fails WP:BIO. Does not meet Wikipedia criteria for notability Rogermx (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a postdoc it's too soon for the subject to pass WP:PROF; I couldn't even find a faculty page or any peer reviewed publications that she has verifiably authored. The Antarctica expedition is a textbook WP:BLP1E that hasn't even happened yet. – Joe (talk) 19:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's clearly too junior for WP:PROF but I think she passes WP:GNG for non-academic material, making academic notability irrelevant. I expanded the bare-url sources in the article and added another, which saves her from BIO1E: she's "one of the few female founders of tech start-ups in Perth" [1]. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The article about RateMySpace is in her university's promotional magazine, I don't think it can be considered an independent source as far as WP:SIGCOV is concerned. – Joe (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She passes GNG and I've rewritten the article, too and added a little bit more. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG; no BLP1E concerns after expansion. XOR'easter (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In light of article expansion, as nominator will change to keep. Thank you for upgrading this article. I love a happy ending. Rogermx (talk) 02:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG through she fails WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are sufficient sources for WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2017 (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.