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. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dasia Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Page on a high-school student who added dye to sutures to indicate a wound infection, and was written up in a few sources. While this is interesting, it is not close to any of the notability criteria. Article was created directly in main by students in Clovis College English 1aH Honors Reading and Composition, then draftified as a standard part of WP:NPR by the nominator as failing notability criteria. Article was submitted to AfC by Brianda (Wiki Ed), and declined by Thilsebatti (also a new page reviewer) as failing notability guidelines.

Without any detailed explanation, extended confirmed user Suriname0 decided to override both WP:NPR draftification and WP:AfC declination. The criteria for notability are well established. It is not normal for decisions by two new-page reviewers to be reverted without first attempting to reach concensus, or explain why notability exists. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Science. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Illinois, and Iowa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The subject of the article meets WP:GNG, with WP:SIGCOV in multiple sources independent of the subject. Thus, it is appropriate for Wikipedia to have an article about the subject. As cited in the article, the subject has been covered in a BlackPast.org entry, a Smithsonian Magazine article, a Des Moines Register article, and a The Gazette article. If Taylor's only coverage was local, I would be concerned about notability, but Taylor's national-level coverage indicates to me that they meet WP:GNG. Thanks, Suriname0 (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  One process comment: I don't believe the article was created in main space by student editors. Rather, it was moved to mainspace in this edit and subsequently cleaned up by User:Brianda (Wiki Ed), who is a WikiEducation staff member. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. [...] and was written up in a few sources (from the nomination statement). If those sources are a couple of blogs, that's one thing. But when those couple of sources include a 1400-word article about the subject in Smithsonian Magazine in March 2021, a 6-and-a half minute segment on PBS News Hour about her in July 2021, an 1100-word article on CNN.com in April 2021, 1500 words in the The Des Moines Register in March 2023 about her being named as one of USA Today's 2023 Women of the Year, linked to from the USA Today page [1], I think the subject easily meets WP:NBIO. RecycledPixels (talk) 08:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I think we have to be very careful about WP:TOOSOON, WP:SUSTAINED and WP:BLP1E. The writeups are about the sutures, not really about her. Sutures which changes color with pH is cute, but is it notable? For certain a single patent (if she receives it) is not enough for notability in science, unless it is at the core of a multi-million (billion) technology. Many scientists invent things and/or have patents, it is part of the job (WP:MILL). It will be years for FDA approval, and for true notability I would want to see evidence for significant commercial use or at the very least testing in less developed countries (where she suggests it would be relevant). For certain an article on just the sutures would be severely questioned without this backup. Even if the sutures become notable, that does not automatically transfer notability to her. Also, please note that in WP:NPROF#C2 there are specific statements that academic student competitions are not considered notable. Similarly we don't consider things like "30 under 30" for scientists as true demonstrations of notability. She has made a good start to her academic career, but I do not see enough as yet which is why it was both draftified and now AfD'd. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:25, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Addendum A quick search indicates that the idea is not new, see for instance this patent. I have to ask whether there would have been notice if she was 27 or 37 -- I doubt it. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:41, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't actually matter whether we think she "deserved" the media coverage. What matters is whether she got it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Plenty of WP:SIGCOV (just added some additional citations right now). The sources describe how Taylor founded a medical device company and is working on bringing her invention to market, all evidence of commercial use as well. CaptainAngus (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2025 (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.