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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn Myronuk (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)

Questionable notability and potentially lacking in WP:SIGCOV by WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Canada, and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Myronuk contributed and / or was mentioned in multiple books, however, she always works in the background. Hence, it is first not noticeable. I support her notability. See example: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Robots_Ethics_and_the_Future_of_Jobs/kQc8EAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justynazander (talk • contribs) 07:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. She appears to be a futurist associated with Raymond Kurzweil and Singularity University, but without scholarly impact (no citations in Google Scholar, no authored books with published reviews), so we have no pass of WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. Of the two sources that look like the could plausibly contribute to WP:GNG-based notability (Wired and CNN), the CNN piece has no depth of coverage on her and is dubiously independent of the Wired piece (it merely repeats Wired's "knowledge sommelier" catchphrase and says she is associated with Singularity University). The Wired article itself merely quotes her; it does not contain any content about her beyond a job title. So we do not have any of the multiple in-depth reliable independent sources required by GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I do not find independent sources for her. In the Abundance book there is no mention of her, not even in the acknowledgments, and in the Kurtzweil book she is acknowledged as "one of the in house readers" (and dozens of people are thanked for more than that). I just don't find anything that can be attributed to this person that would be notable. Lamona (talk) 02:40, 23 July 2023 (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.