Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corinna Löckenhoff: Difference between revisions

::::{{ping|Tagishsimon}} I already gave this link above: [https://www.google.com/search?biw=1242&bih=543&tbm=nws&sxsrf=ACYBGNSp9hhYW1F65CYfhq-rITx567Q0Tg%3A1578720840373&ei=SF4ZXr29FuGC9PwPxby-6Ak&q=corinna+l%C3%B6ckenhoff&oq=corinna+l%C3%B6ckenhoff&gs_l=psy-ab.3...17136.17758.0.18356.2.2.0.0.0.0.115.203.1j1.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.a4V6HjWnMr4#spf=1578720860363 Google have many hits for her in the "news" section]. It was meant to answer the GNG criteria.--[[User:Biografer|Biografer]] ([[User talk:Biografer|talk]]) 21:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

:::::Dumping a search-engine query is, by itself, not too helpful. Moreover, there are only 10 items returned in that Google News search, which is not a promising beginning. The first is [https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/10/study-compares-traditional-and-modern-views-aging a standard university PR item from her employer], so it's not independent. The [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-we-are-attracted-to-deviant-personalities/ second] quotes her as the standard "according to a researcher who was not involved in the study" opinion. It's not about her or her own work. The [https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2015/11/97680/fall-in-love-with-wrong-person-science third] is just an echo of the second. The [https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/1126/122.html#63de72695d88 fourth] is a ''Forbes'' "contributor" item, and these are generally seen as not reliable; it only mentions her in passing anyway, as a then-graduate student carrying out research started by someone else. The [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070426093412.htm fifth] is a passing mention in a press release about somebody else's research. The remainder aren't in English; four are [[churnalism|churnalistic]] echoes of the second item, and the final one is paywalled so I can't evaluate it. Nothing here adds up to a pass of [[WP:GNG]] or [[WP:PROF]]. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 22:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

***We're not "blindly follow[ing] subjects' wishes"; we're debating the removal of potentially misleading content about an individual in a situation where omitting that individual's biography from Wikipedia would not even seriously affect our ability to write about the subject area where she works. '''Wiki-notability is about whether a subject ''can in principle'' have a Wikipedia article, which is not the same as whether they ''must'' have an article.''' Yes, a GS h-index of 33 is pretty good, but that's only one factor in our considerations, and as noted above, whether Fellowship in the Gerontological Society of America is enough for [[WP:PROF#C3]] is not so clear-cut. Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't — I don't think that specific society has actually come up in any notability debate so far, meaning that the question simply hasn't been settled yet. Nor am I convinced that the additional sources really make a [[WP:GNG]] case for wiki-notability: for example, a [http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2014/08/loeckenhoff-reaps-early-career-award-gerontology press release from the subject's own institution] is a [[WP:PRIMARY|primary]] source. We can take it as accurate, but it doesn't really represent the wider world paying attention. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 21:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

****{{ping|:XOR'easter}} The [https://www.geron.org/membership/fellows/gsa-current-fellows Fellowship enlists 1564 members as of 2019]. We also have a category: [[:Category:Fellows of the Gerontological Society of America]] since 2017.--[[User:Biografer|Biografer]] ([[User talk:Biografer|talk]]) 21:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)