Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridget Stutchbury

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 speedy keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bridget Stutchbury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I'm an inclusionist, but I simply cannot see how this article passes WP:NPROF. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing which impressed me. Narky Blert (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Article creator User:SwisterTwister not notified - blocked for socking 29 December 2017.) Narky Blert (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Meets WP:PROF with significant contributions, some of which have been covered in general press, as in:

• "[Stutchbury's] research made a splash after it came out in Science in 2009, and soon the journals were regularly publishing geolocator studies of migrating songbirds." Source: Where Do Songbirds Go to Die? After revolutionizing bird-migration science over the past decade, geolocation technology is poised to shine light on the field’s darkest mystery.

This is after a cursory look, but I believe that alone is sufficient for a stub. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep. Why don't nominators do WP:Before and look at scholar data which gives a clear pass of WP:Prof#C1? A WP:Trout for the nominator. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• Speedy keep. Even before looking anywhere beyond the two lines of text of the article, anyone with eyes to read can see a clear pass of WP:PROF#C5. A stunningly bad nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:21, 4 May 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.