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. If anyone would like the article userfied or put in draft to be improved, please let me know. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Cassidy[edit]

Jennifer Cassidy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

The article reads like a LinkedIn page, it does not meet the usual criteria for the notability of an academic at WP:ACADEMIC. I don't think that there is a strong argument for inclusion due to WP:SIGCOV, many of the sources used in the article currently only mention her tweets briefly. She is a mid-level (early career) academic and frankly if she has a page then there will be many thousands of academics who also qualify. Mountaincirque^talk 11:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Ireland. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. The article has no assertion of GNG notability, and I see mostly passing mentions (although a fair number of those). There is a human interest story about the subject here [1], but I am not convinced that this contributes much to notability. The citation record looks like a start towards WP:NPROF C1, but a fair bit WP:TOOSOON. She is listed as editor-in-chief on Brill Research Perspectives in Diplomacy and Foreign Policy [2], but I don't think this new journal counts as "well established". Watching the conversation in case better evidence of notability arises. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify: a fair bit WP:TOOSOON but it's leaning to WP:NPROF. There is some WP:SIGCOV according to Russ Woodroofe. -- Wesoree ^{(talk·contribs)} 14:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Tend to agree that this is a case of too early career, given the PhD date of 2016. There is only a single authored book, so probably Not yet notable under WP:AUTHOR. No point in moving to draft as it will just be deleted in 6 months, but if the creator/editors wanted to a userspace copy that would make sense (when the subject publishes a second authored book there is a good chance that AUTHOR will be met). Espresso Addict (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that userification might be a better solution than draftification, assuming GeneralBelly or another editor is willing to take it up. (I'm concerned that draftification is likely to turn into quiet deletion after 6 months.) But I didn't see the authored book? Public Diplomacy in the Digital Age is a journal article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that; I was wondering why I could not find book reviews. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Userify. That actually is a vote for "Weak Delete" on the basis of a little below the critera for WP:PROF (via TOOSOON) and a bit too little on GNG (for Twitter citations). But it's one of these cases where "is it hurting or helping the encyclopedia" makes me think a standard delete is the wrong outcome--it's not promotional, factual, and is about a scholar who is likely (via professional and public engagement) to reach the bar in the near future (but not the 6-months for draft keeping). Wishing there were a "Delete but previous versions available to all registered users" outcome available. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. NYC Guru (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2023 (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.