Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deanna B. Marcum

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 under WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deanna B. Marcum

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG – a librarian and a managing director of a small nonprofit. Only references are to sources closely associated with the subject.

This is one of a number of biographies with questionable notability added by Rlhuffine. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable professional awardee, no policy based reason for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.143.154.162 (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Policy is mentioned. Received a non-notable award from a charity no longer in existence. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable (but there's more than just one award and the ALA award--which still exists--is definitely notable) would be one thing but no longer in existence isn't an argument against notability per WP:NTEMP. Skynxnex (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable author and librarian, has sufficient sourcing to meet WP:GNG. Andre🚐 02:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSNOTABLE? You need to provide at least some evidence. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence is already in the article as it exists. Your rationale is invalid. The references are not mostly sources closely associated with the subject. Andre🚐 14:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Multiple publications which have been subject of a scholarly review. Gusfriend (talk) 10:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:AUTHOR with multiple, independent reviews of her work. Also, to be clear, she was an associate librarian of the United States' Library of Congress, which is the library for the United States Congress, not a small/local library. DaffodilOcean (talk) 11:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:AUTHOR as stated. Marcum was president of Council on Library and Information Resources for eight years and a university dean for three years. Google Scholar shows her scholarship has been cited hundreds of times by other academics, and she received the American Library Association's highest honor in addition to the Miles Conrad Award (which continues to be awarded as of this year), so meets WP:PROF. Topshelver (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think her citations are enough for WP:PROF#C1 but the major awards look like a pass of #C2 and heading the CLIR could pass #C6. Published profiles give in-depth independent coverage for WP:GNG, and multiple published reviews of multiple books pass WP:AUTHOR. This is one of a number of AfDs on clearly-notable biographies initiated by User:Kashmiri in an apparent case of WP:HOUNDING against long-term editor User:Rlhuffine. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another personal attack by someone who supposedly is an administrator. @David Eppstein, it's only for lack of time that I'm not taking your incessant attacks to ANI. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Negative evaluations of patterns of contributions are not the same thing as personal attacks. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With this level of understanding of Wikipedia policies (here: WP:HOUNDING), shouldn't you consider a voluntary recall?

(This is just an evaluation of your pattern of reasoning). — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think "evaluation" means what you think it means. There is no evaluation in your comment, only innuendo. I note that this is not the first time you have been accused of hounding, this month alone. In both cases you explicitly admitted to looking through contribution lists to find other edits to work against. That may be appropriate behavior in response to new or low-quality editors but not with long-term good-faith editors with whom you merely have a difference of opinion. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article shows awards and significant positions in her field. I count > 50 publications by her. The citation counts are not high, but I think they may be comparable for the field which, oddly enough, does not produce much writing. Lamona (talk) 05:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above; an impressive amount of work and significant in her field with some extension into popular culture, plus the awards and reviews of her books. Skynxnex (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG Lightburst (talk) 04:42, 4 September 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.