Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurie Michelle Bridges

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 23:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Michelle Bridges

[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 enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you please explain to me exactly what is so wrong about the article to remove it? Thank you in advance ElenaEt (talk) 00:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am the annoying one who deprodded this. Giving an overview of WP:PROF criteria I found that: She has an h-score somewhere betweeen 5 and 8 as google scholar and scopus give different results. Upwards of 300+ citations, and at least 12 publications. One publication has 132 citations, and another has 43 and she was not first author on it. Most publications with high citations are older. So while she has not published a lot, it does seem like what she does public is rather noteworthy. It also doesn't appear to be a top journal either. I am not familiar with the averages in library science, and I wasn't able to find it. I am inclined to say no it doesn't meet C1, but if this proves to be near averages I may change my assessment. As for all the other criteria, she seems to fails C2-C8 as I was not able to find evidence of her meeting any of those. I could not find any major new articles, secondary sources, or similar on her which leads me to believe she fails WP:BIO as well, and does not pass WP:AUTHOR if that were a possible consideration. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 01:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
Hello. Is it possible to change this decision? This librarian is a very important woman to the international library community, regardless of the traditional publishing circuit. The concept of notability should not be tied to the article indexing ranking when, ultimately, she is a person with various academic publications.

Having her biography allows many people to know the impact of women librarians of the 21st century. I also believe that the fact that her article in the Spanish edition of wikipedia remains alive, shows the relevance of her existence. Thanks in advance! Virc587 (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG as per above. Tulkijasi (talk) 10:10, 3 July 2021 (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.