- 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 per WP:SNOW. It might also be relevant to note that the nominator's only contributions to Wikipedia have been to try to get this article deleted. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Mika McKinnon
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Mika McKinnon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This person is not notable and should be removed. Her current position at "Project ESPRESSO" is not significant. None of the other "Project ESPRESSO" participants, including the Principal Investigator and Deputy Principal Investigator, have Wikipedia pages. "Project ESPRESSO" itself does not have a Wikipedia page. Her occasional consulting with television programs does not warrant inclusion. She does not have significant publications. Both television shoes that she is "currently...science advisor" to are cancelled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unconciousobserver2 ( talk • contribs) 20:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
- Keep: She is science consultant for at least two active shows, continues to write pieces for a number of magazines, and is a reasonably high profile science communicator. The language in the complaint seems unnecessarily antagonistic and suggests that the request for deletion is motivated by her gender. Robert McNees ( talk • contribs) 02:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep: I disagree with the anon editor at top. McKinnon's notability is not based on ESPRESSO but on the fact that she is a well known science communicator whose expertise on geophysics is regularly consulted by other science communicators such as myself (36k Twitter followers is perhaps not super famous, but many of them are scientists themselves). The fact that the Stargate shows (not "shoes", learn to spell!) are no longer on the air doesn't make the people associated with them less notable (I don't think Shatner's page is going to be up for deletion any time soon...). I find her Wikipedia page a useful reference. JonathanMcDowell ( talk) 02:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep: The appropriate statute relevant to this discussion is WP:ACADEMIC. McKinnon clearly meets criterion 7 ("The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.") due to her roles as science communicator. -- Astronomy additions ( talk) 02:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep: None of the clear-cut reasons for deletion apply here: not one event fame, nor self-promoting, nor gossipy. The article's tone is calm and it is unsensational and well-sourced. The notability standard is very subjective and it makes sense to err on the side of inclusion. More relevant is that this is exactly the kind of article I'd hope to find when looking for background on an author, investigator, or speaker. -- ota ( talk) 02:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Quite apart from her substantial impact as a journalist, technical advisor, and communicator, she's been profiled by at least four independent sources (and I just added a fifth). These sort of spurious (and anonymous) notability challenges seem to be ignoring WP:SIGCOV, the basic criterion of significant coverage in reliable sources, something she obviously meets. — Giantflightlessbirds ( talk) 03:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - Meets general notability criteria, as described above. Lots of secondary sources available. Spyder212 ( talk) 04:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per all above. Might I suggest snow keep at this point? -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 04:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.