Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adriane Rini

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 per WP:SNOW. Editors improved the article during AfD. (non-admin closure) Lightburst (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adriane Rini

[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)

Seemingly a non-notable academic. The three listed sources in this article are her own PhD and the university she works for, hardly independent sources, and therefore fails WP:GNG. As far as I can tell she also fails WP:PROF, but I'm not overly familiar with the guidelines there so I listed it here, instead of WP:PROD. Xx78900 (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Xx78900 (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough published book reviews for WP:AUTHOR even if one skips the edited volume. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not gonna challenge anyone's votes because I don't know enough about AfD in this area, but number of books published isn't a criteria listed in WP:AUTHOR, I think you have the wrong guideline in mind. Xx78900 (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misread your original comment. I still don't feel that this body of work is "signifcant or well-known", which the review criteria is subordinate to, but I won't challenge you on it.Xx78900 (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Xx78900: To put it another way, we have now ten in-depth, reliably published, independent sources about Rini's work. WP:GNG only demands two. They are about her work rather than what kind of pets she keeps but what do you expect sources on a scholar to look like? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. A bit on the early side but some respectable cites on GS for a very very low cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]
As above, I won't challenge anyone, but I don't think 'respectable' number of cites is an inclusion criteria by WP:PROF. Xx78900 (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is. That's how we usually evaluate WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like a pass of the wiki-notability criteria for authors. XOR'easter (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the wiki-notability criteria for authors. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:AUTHOR. Thriley (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'm not seeing how they pass WP:AUTHOR, but they do seem to be cited within their particular field to just pass WP:PROF. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NAUTHOR states that The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. In this case, three of her books ( Aristotle's Modal Proofs, The World-Time Parallel, and Logical Modalities From Aristotle to Carnap) meet the criterion, with each having a minimum of three reviews from high-quality, WP:RS scholarly sources per refs 6, 7, and 8. Therefore, WP:NAUTHOR is satisfied. VickKiang (talk) 05:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.