Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Freeman

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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Freeman

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

No actual sources given. "Works" do not qualify as sources. Can't find anything on the net. Since this was a "Wikibomb2014" product, recommend draftify for more work. Revent^talk 15:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:ify as unreferenced. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG, I'm afraid (and that's probably true for most of the Wikibomb2014 articles). Freeman's h-index is 5 by my count (being careful not to confuse her with Angela B Freeman, a US cancer researcher). There may be news coverage of Freeman's government work for WP:PROF#C7 or WP:GNG, but I can only find one article ([1]). Essentially, this is an example of someone who does critically important agricultural work, but "flies under the radar" from a notability point of view. Draftifying is a waste of time, since most of the Wikibomb2014 articles were added by temporary editors, and any remaining Wikibomb2014 energy should go to articles closer to the notability borderline. -- 101.117.108.126 (talk) 00:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per IP editors comments. The article does not pass either WP:PROF or WP:GNG. AlanS (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References have now been added - I would agree it is still borderline but I think they are just about adequate. Deb (talk) 09:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is one source which is independent of the subject and reliable. AlanS (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Run-of-the-mill industry scientist. Abductive (reasoning) 03:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. She doesn't seem to pass WP:PROF but the profile of her in The Age goes a long way towards WP:GNG. If there were two such sources, I could likely be persuaded to change my mind. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2014 (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.