Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breanne McGhee

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Breanne McGhee

[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:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. No effective references. scope_creep^Talk 22:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. PR flim-flam. No pass of WP:Prof or WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. She's had her OD for just 5 years (but is apparently both a full-time optometrist and a PhD student?), has no Scopus- or WoS-indexed publications, and apparently supports FRINGE treatments (vision therapy). No evidence she's actually notable through either NPROF or GNG. This is one of several UW WikiEd BIPOC bios that have strongly failed notability...JoelleJay (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Assistant prof, no indication of passing WP:NPROF, awards seem early career, and not enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, maybe way way TOOSOON. Fails WP:NPROF, all awards are student / early career awards. --hroest 13:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPROF, and I was unable to find adequate coverage in independent sources to argue that the subject passes WP:GNG at the moment. If the article was more neutral in tone I'd have argued for draftify as it might just be a bit WP:TOOSOON. Watchlisting this in case new sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:24, 16 June 2021 (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.