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. This is the second re-creation since the previous AfD, so WP:SALT will be applied. RL0919 (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Colclough (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)

Previous discussion at AfD ended in delete. I don't see that much has changed: little sign of the kind of impact that we're looking for in WP:NPROF, nor of other notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Technology, and Denmark. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. Still no academic notability. Puffed-up reference list is packed with sources that appear to be primary, by her, or mentioning her without in-depth coverage; I don't see WP:GNG-level in-depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Rapid re-creation after the previous AfD suggests that salt is necessary. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "Puffed-up reference list is packed with sources that appear to be primary, by her, or mentioning her without in-depth coverage" -- These references have been sourced without interference from Christina Colclough.

  Please confirm what you mean "salt" is necessary. I have come across this one from a colleague and have recently added it to Christina's page: https://direct.mit.edu/books/oa-edited-volume/5319/Digital-Work-in-the-Planetary-Market Hessiejones (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:SALT means protecting the title so that it cannot be re-created without going through another discussion at WP:DRV first. It's a step that can be taken when there is evidence that some editors are not respecting the consensus of deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt as per nom. The publication record is unremarkable, and the whole thing sounds WP:PEACOCK-y. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as stated, not enough to meet WP:NPROF, and WP:TOOSOON at best even for WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2022 (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.