Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johanna Olson-Kennedy

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johanna Olson-Kennedy

[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)

Fails WP:NBASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACADEMIC.

On NBASIC, in the article at time of nomination there were four media articles that Olson-Kennedy did not author. All of these articles contain brief commentary from her, but none of the articles are about her. While conducting WP:BEFORE, I continued to find articles containing brief quotations from her but I found no WP:RS about her that met WP:SIGCOV.

On ANYBIO, none of the awards listed on Olson-Kennedy's work profile website seem to meet ANYBIO#1. I was not able to find any in-depth media or academic coverage of her that would meet ANYBIO#2. For ANYBIO#3 I was not able to find any biographical dictionaries that cover Olson-Kennedy's research field, but I don't have access to the more general Marquis Who's Who to preform a search.

On NACADEMIC, while Olson-Kennedy's research has been cited, I've not found any evidence that it has had significant impact per #1. She's not recieved any awards that qualify for #2. She's not been elected to a highly selective and prestegious society or association for #3. Her research is not in the field of higher education for #4. She's not heled a named chair or distinguished profesor for #5. She's not held a high level elected or appointed administrative post for #6. Though she has been quoted in conventional reliable media, I don't think it's frequent enough to meet #7. And she's not been head or cheif editor of any academic journals in her field per #8. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Sexuality and gender, and Medicine. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also just to note, Olson-Kennedy is a paediatrician who treats and supports trans youth and adolescents, as such her article is a semi-frequent target for borderline attack content. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment query: could that be addressed with a lock or other measures short of deletion? Jo7hs2 (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep. The subject here has published under both the last name "Olson-Kennedy" and also "Olson". Under the latter name, I see enough highly cited papers that I think it is a pass of WP:NPROF C1. The media seeking her out as an expert on transgender issues provides some support via WP:NPROF C7. The article is in poor shape, but as usual WP:DINC. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Striking "weak", after substantial sources found by Mvqr. The PBS piece in particular (which is distinct from a different PBS piece cited by the current article) looks to be somewhat significant coverage. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Russ Woodroofe points out the citation record is significant. Furthermore, there is coverage by significant media: [1], [2], [3], [4]. --Mvqr (talk) 11:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have to disagree with nom, I see enough citations of her (under either name) work that I disagree with nom’s characterization on #1 and I see enough mass media quotes to disagree with characterization on #7. Citation record is sufficient to pass NPROF and she’s been held out as an expert by at least some credible media. Jo7hs2 (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in line with other users. The sources cited seem credible enough to justify keeping this page. A quick search pulls up USC Health Profiles, Children's Hospital Los Angeles, Duke Sexual and Gender Minority Health Program, National LGBTQIA+ Health Education Center, The Atlantic (supposedly mentioned in this article, but its behind a paywall, so I can't confirm it), San Diego State University School of Social Work, Academy for Professional Excellence, ScienceNews, Washington Post (said to be in article, but it is behind paywall), The Hollywood Reporter (also see here), NBC News (see here), CBS News, Newsweek, Scientific American (see here), and Al Jazeera America. Historyday01 (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I looked into this myself in some depth and come to the conclusion that the article subject satisfies WP:GNG. As an additional point, I also find that WP:NPROF criteria 1 and 7 are definitively met. Hopefully my discovery of this will put the discussion on a trajectory for keeping. Shawn Teller (talk) 19:48, 25 March 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.