Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maggie Lieu

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. Not seeing a successful argument against BLP1E J04n(talk page) 16:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Lieu

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:PROF. The possible notability by the GNG seems to be only 1EVENT base on not being selected for the Mars trip. The policy is NOT NEWS, and NOT TABLOID DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete off to a good (recent) start but not yet enough citations in a very highly cited field to pass WP:Prof#C1: WP:Too soon. Only other possibility is a WP:BLP1E for failing to be selected for the Mars trip. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I didn't realise that the Dutch are planning to get to Mars before Elon Musk. Anyway, this person got lots of coverage over time for her involvement and so passes WP:BASIC. Andrew D. (talk) 08:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Wholly inappropriate article, largely a collection of trivia based on a tortuous analysis of primary sources. At this point in time, the subject is far from notable as a scientist. If she is notable for her involvement in the Mars One affair, then the lead should go like "Maggie Lieu was a finalist in the Mars One competition ...", which would be unencyclopedic (WP:1EVENT, WP:NOTNEWS) and a disservice to the subject. Rentier (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, I have tried to improve but understand and agree with your points. What do you mean by "a disservice to the subject"? Jesswade88 (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many people take a pretty dim view of the Mars One project and being pidgeonholed as a "former Mars One contestant" might not be a good thing. Rentier (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an orphan with admittedly a fair few references, but I'm only seeing one event, being a failure, and then a CV of someone who works in a high tech industry. Perhaps I should get someone to create an article about me. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is TRM appearing at the O2 like the subject? Does TRM appear in numerous books like the subject? Didn't think so. But hi-tech and Mars colonisation aren't that important anyway, are they? What really matters is that you can kick a ball like Luke Woolfenden (age 19) and Tristan Nydam (age 18), right? The systemic bias on display here is blatant. Andrew D. (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. WP:Other stuff. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Delete I can understand the sentiment, but it is not there. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--per Rentier and DGG.~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is significant coverage of her over time as per Andrew Davidson. Passes GNG. Plus, she wasn't a failure, she chose to pull out. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with BLP1E nature, but also not notable as a scientist (a few low double-digit citation papers in a high citation field). Agricola44 (talk) 03:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article clearly explains she's not notable and references this accurately. Szzuk (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The WP:BLP1E discussion so far has convinced me with nothing else being notable in terms of GNG. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TOOSOON. She may develop adequate significant notability at some point in her career, but not going to Mars does not constitute encyclopedic notability. Softlavender (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG, significant source coverage (although whoever cited the Daily Mail - please do not do that again) from a news search. If you want to start a family on Mars, and you can, well it's a free universe. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:34, 2 March 2018 (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.