Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melanie Bahlo

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. Nomination withdrawn. Looking further agree I was mistaken. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Bahlo

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

In need of significant independent coverage. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "In need of" according to what standard? She clearly passes WP:PROF#C1 (heavily cited publications). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the award of the Moran Medal seems significant. Also, it's rare that academic work is covered by the general press, but here's an article in Sydney Morning Herald:

"'Treasure map' identifies first genetic clues to form of blindness"

This is a strong indicator of notability and significance, so it's a "keep" for me, on the balance of things. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well published and cited as far as I can tell. Science press and mainstream everyday press coverage, so notable to the general public too. Aoziwe (talk) 11:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question for Doc James: Do you have any evidence for your accusation that this is the result of paid editing? Because the main contributors appear to be Bitazeighami (who has edited only this article, so we know nothing about any other interests they may have), and GreenMeansGo, a long-term editor (with contributions back to July 2008) under a recent name change with a cleaner block log than me. This is a serious accusation, so if you do have evidence it would be helpful for the AfD. If you do not, you should not be impugning these editors. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:David Eppstein. Looking at this further and I believe I am mistaken. Have removed the tag and will close this as keep. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Citations and awards are a clear pass of WP:PROF. I'm also puzzled by the paid editing tag. – Joe (talk) 07:42, 17 October 2017 (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.