> If the Wikipedia editor didn't just Google the person if there were no links why didn't they go to some minor effort rather than just assuming said article is bunk.
It is not their role to do so. Or put another way, it is no more their role to do it than yours.
Furthermore, the admin is likely not a domain expert and it makes sense to send it back to the author who clearly knows more to say "Hey, we need citations." Which is what was done.
> Or again, after a very quick search realise the person is senior and publish asking for more public input on the topic/atricle.
This was more or less done: The rejection notice said more input was needed.
As someone who spent time in academia: I'm definitely against creating pages for researchers who merely have published a lot. Their work has to be significant. While hers clearly was, it was not referenced.
> The fact it was deleted instead shows either a problem with the mods or a bias among the mods
Frankly, the fact is that you are not aware of Wikipedia's AFC submission process. Please take a look here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creatio...
And the guidelines for reviewers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles...
Specifically, look at the review flowchart:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a8/Flow_ch...
It very clearly states that if an AFC article is not reliably sourced, it should be rejected.
While I can't speak for the actual biases of the admin, the article would have been rejected by any unbiased admin who follows the process.
> Most conversation on this is around defending a wiki admin from not being capable of determining good from bad which is getting stupid.
I agree it is stupid, but the stupidity arises from the CBC article: They chose to highlight this without doing the appropriate work to understand how Wikipedia works. While the bias they speak of may well be very real, they didn't pick a good example - opting instead for sensationalism.