Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daisy Deomampo

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 redirect to Transnational Reproduction. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Deomampo

[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)

Does not pass NAUTHOR. Does not pass NRPOF. She's an assistant professor, and the awards listed are minor. None of the sources are independent, reliable, and have significant coverage. Natureium (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An assistant professor who is cited 194 times according to Google Schoolar. She doesn't pass WP:PROF or WP:GNG. --Tataral (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The junior position is not promising: assistant professors are not barred from being notable, but often aren't. Her Google Scholar profile doesn't list enough highly cited publications to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. I didn't find much in the way of independent reliably published sources about her. So what's left is her one book, Transnational Reproduction. But this book has at least seven published reviews. So despite being only one book I think there is a weak case for WP:AUTHOR, similar to another recent case Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cynthia A. Young. But because there is nothing more towards notability than that one book, WP:BIO1E comes into play and it may be preferable to redirect this to an article about the book instead of about her. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or convert to an article about the book. Much like the other recent case mentioned above, the wiki-notability case for the book is much more clear-cut (or, to say it another way, easier to argue by the letter of the guidelines). But we might as well save the edit history, rather than starting from scratch. XOR'easter (talk)
Delete - The notability is of the book, not of the author. Fails NAUTHOR as well as NACADEMIC. ∯WBG^converse 09:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ fails WP:PROF. Note that page was created by an SPA, and that it reads like PROMO for an early career academic. Book is notable and a willing editor can certainly create a page about the book Transnational Reproduction: Race, Kinship, and Commercial Surrogacy in India, using sources now in this page. But it is WP:TOOSOON for a page on Deomampo.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just don’t see the notability here. Perhaps in due time. Trillfendi (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Transnational Reproduction, as the book is notable under WP:NBOOK#1 but the author doesn't yet meet notability guidelines. Bakazaka (talk) 01:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Pinging David Eppstein, XOR'easter, Winged Blades of Godric, and E.M.Gregory, now that book article has been created. Bakazaka (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd be fine with a redirect to Transnational Reproduction. I don't think we need to delete before redirecting, since nothing in the page history is intrinsically objectionable, but it's probably not a big deal either way. XOR'easter (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Redirect. As I wrote above, "there is nothing more towards notability than that one book". The rest of the article is just an easily-reconstructed recap of her education, and a listing of grants and talks that we routinely omit from these articles. So I don't think much of value will be lost by a redirect. And the focus on content rather than promotional activity has already made the book article better than the biography. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Transnational Reproduction, as per my comment above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Transnational Reproduction per Bakazaka. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2019 (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.