Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators

WP:AFD/PROF

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Academics and educators. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Academics and educators|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Academics and educators. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Please see WP:BIO for guidelines on the inclusion of biographical articles and WP:PROF for the widely-used notability standard for academics.

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Education for a general list of deletion debates related to education.

Academics and educators

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Lee Foster

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

Article has no sources discussing him, I'm not finding any either on this Dennis Lee Foster. Doug Weller talk 13:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the creator's comments on the article talk page saying that Foster had sent him copies of off-line reports on him, but obviously they are impossible to identify and a search for them turns up nothing. The creator also removed the BLP sources and Primary sources tags from the article.[1] Doug Weller talk 13:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article claims he has published lots, but GS shows that nobody has taken the slightest interest in it. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)/[reply]
Delete. He is a prolific author of how-to books, but to pass WP:AUTHOR they need to have significant reviews, and to pass WP:PROF#C4 they need to be widely used as textbooks in higher education. Neither appears to be the case. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:14, 6 November 2016 (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.

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. Notability has been established, hiccup with formatting quickly fixed. Nev1 (talk) 10:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Kaplan Eisenstein

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

No wiki links. No references. No ext. links. And no categories. ... Lhealt _(talk) 14:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is currently being edited during a University of Edinburgh editathon. Please do not delete.EMcAndrew (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The current version seems quite well advanced from when this template went on. We should definitely keep this. Caorongjin (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Jewish Women's Archive bio and the numerous already-cited news obituaries (including those in The New York Times and Chicago Tribune) clearly state the case for her notability in the field of religious music, as well as her landmark role as the first bat mitzvah girl. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- sufficient for GNG; for example, Kaplan's Bat Mitzvah is covered in some detail in The Jewish Life Cycle: Rites of Passage from Biblical to Modern Times. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The breadth and scope of the reliable and verifiable sources about the article's subject rather clearly support her claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 09:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW keep, and a WP:TROUT to the nominator, Lhealt, for taking this step only two minutes after article creation, at a stage where it was clearly still being worked on by its creator (e.g. placeholders for its references, later filled in). An obituary in the New York Times is automatic notability, even if we didn't have all the other evidence that we do. And merely checking WP:BEFORE should have taken longer than two minutes. Perhaps a withdrawal is in order? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG, well referenced article reflects this, oh and a seconder on the trouting, nomination 2mins after appeared is a rediculously short amount of time. ps. please feel free to send me a minnow as i am feeling a bit peckish. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, although without any initial references, nom may feel justified, so the creator, Melissa Highton, could have placed a under construction or an active editing tag on it, or done a little more sandbox development before making it live? Coolabahapple (talk) 04:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you all for your support and advice. I wrote the article as part of a 'Women and Religion' editathon with colleagues at University of Edinburgh. I used visual editor to create the page in my sandbox and then copied it across. I did not realise that visual editor would not copy all my refs and links too. I have learned new skills in the process! By the time I figured out what had happened the delete template was already on. I hope the delete nomination can be removed. Thank you. Melissa Highton (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:57, 4 November 2016 (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.

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 draftified. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 05:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Perry (pianist)

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

Previously version of article was deleted. Instead of CSD, can we have a community discussion re: notability? --Another Believer _(Talk) 14:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks to me that the subject of the article is notable, but the entire text has been copied from the subject's profile, which more than one other website claims copyright over. We must delete the article unless someone is willing to rewrite it from scratch in a form that is not a copyright violation. --Deskford (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise. I don't dispute that the musician deserves a Wikipedia article, but the current article has to be deleted as a copyright violation unless a) it is confirmed that the official profile has been published under a free license, or b) the article is re-written from the scratch. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry, but I put the text upside down! And I created all those links notbody would look up if they were not there! So, it took me many hours of work. You can't delete something from a CV, when it is important! Do you want to say, Perry got a masters degree from such and such a university and then neglect where he got his bachelor from!? Greetings! The same is it with round trips or prices won! --Christof Bucherer (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am the creator of this page and I sent an email with asking Mr. Perry to use his material. The material has been spread all over the world. In many profiles you read exactly the same text. What you don't find is the age of Mr. Perry, nor birth date. Also you don't find anything about his relationship to Mina, John&Mina Perry as (we). But both they give concerts and lead the school for piano students they have founded. There is a presence of Andrea Perry having put many of the performances of Mr. Perry on YouTube.[2]. I added two students and also a video how he teaches with Mina Perry in his classes. Since I have this linklist now, it heartwarming to listen to its music! One of the students of Mr. Perry is Umi Garrett who has her Wikipedia entry.[3]. I feel, if the very good student[4] of Mr. Perry deserves a page in Wikipedia, he does too! Amy is so famous, that I translated[5] the Wikipedia page into German. They already deleted all the videos, which are in the English page, as if the adience in German does need to listen to the music, of which my link list is very long. In the German culture you are not allowed to say that a pianist is received with much acclamation or Standing Ovation, since you might hurt the feelings of the people, who don't like enthusiasm, as the German chancellor has expressed to the evangelical press. The attitude of many German speaking people is one of hatred (aggressiveness) against the neighbour, jealousy because we are all doing so well and the state looks so well after us![6]. I want to point out, that my mum has a Wikipedia page[7] and much of the material has been taken from my own homepage! Do you think, anybody ever asked me if I would release this and this YouTube video or give copyright for Wilhelmine Bucherer[8] from my CV,[9] (which I had written on the day of her funeral in 2006) I have written about my mum? And my stepfather Max Zweig[10] has a Wikipedia page, and do you think anybody has asked if its ok if they link my YouTube video[11] of Max into the page? The author wrote, that after the death of his first wife, he did not marry my mum legally, since she did not want to convert from Christianity to Judaism!!! and then they give a link to my video as a proof! ("Nach dem Tod seiner ersten Frau Margarete heiratete er die Schweizer Harfenistin Wilhelmine Bucherer, jedoch blieb die Ehe im Staat Israel aufgrund der Weigerung Bucherers zum Judentum zu konvertierten nicht anerkannt".)[12]. And as if it were not enough, a blind Wikipedia user accused me of not writing my village name right and that I should go and change it on my mums page, as if I was the author or aware of details what that person who wrote the summary from reviews of my homepage and the general internet wisdom! My Village was called Schönbühl-Urtenen and the elite in the peoples assembly have turned it to Urtenen-Schönbühl, as if it would make any difference! Because, we all here, who live here, we say we live in Schönbühl (and Urtenen has its own railway station, where many farms stand - a class of people wo tend to go to the popular peoples party, which formerly was the farmers and middle class party.[13] (I linked it in French, so, you can see, they speak three languages, but not English!) So, if you look at my address: it is 3322 Schönbühl, and my mother died in Schönbühl and is also burried in Schönbühl (in those former days 2006). Actually, the cemetery lies in Urtenen and over there is the church[14] and Schönbühl there is forgotten about: kirche-urtenen.ch! So, nobody here can teach me where I live! But I enjoy now the whole time listening to the linklist I created for John Perry which is found at YouTube under John Perry. (here in Switzerland you hurt peoples feelings if you say that, since you are not "allowed" to "enjoy") Easy? Greetings and.... I am learning! --Christof Bucherer (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I totally altered the original version, shortened it but also added new information. I hope the page remains! Greetings --Christof Bucherer (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Seems notable, through this mess of an article does not do proper justice to the awards won ([15]). Copyvio issues persist (ex. to [16]) suggest most of the article should be nuked, and reduced to 2-3 sentences that are summary of facts and are not copied from some other sources. Also, Christof, you need to learn more about copyright. If the German article copied form your homepage and you do not use free license, the German article's content should be deleted. Linking to a YouTube video is not a copyvio. You cannot reuse someone else content on Wikipedia unless it is freely licensed. This is the law and those are Wikipedia rules. Please read more at Wikipedia:Copyright. If you are German, German Wikipedia community is very active and has a ton of resources to help you learn on those topics. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it looks notable and redeemable, it just isn't of a standard for main namespace. I have moved it to Draft:John Perry (pianist) where it can be improved. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:17, 8 November 2016 (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.

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. Sam Walton (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hofschröer

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

Request for deletion at WP:BLPN here Meatsgains (talk) 02:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per WP:REALPROBLEM.

So I used to live in Los Angeles and...

I attended edit-a-thons where we'd get potential new editors. These wannabe-Hollywood types, when they weren't name-dropping who they worked with or talked to, tried to convince me to help them "have an article on Wikipedia" for ego and promotional purposes. With only one exception I refused them and I explained that they don't want Wikipedia to have an article about them for exactly this situation. Notability is not temporary and you can't turn around and ask us to delete the article about you because it doesn't read the way you want it to. Too bad for Mr. Hofschröer and his apparent bad behavior. My undergrad is in history and I have a soft spot for historians.

The subject is notable under WP:PROF as seen here, here, here, and here. All of those sources are academic work and nothing of the BLP nature so we ought not just delete it. Sadly, the current article doesn't reflect that and I'm a proponent of WP:REALPROBLEM. I'll cut Hofschröer a break and ask the closing admin to move this into my userspace and salt the mainspace entry until time goes by and I can write a fair and well-written article. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes GNG. A deletion request by a friend / acquantance / colleague of the subject doesn't cut it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I point out that the subject does not pass WP:Prof#C1 on the basis of the GS citations to his work. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep While I would prefer it removed due to the problems involved, he easily passes GNG on his books alone. Unfortunately his less than academic antics mean the popular press thats accessible is weighted towards negative actions. This however is not a reason by itself to delete. Currently the article is fair in accordance with the sources available, so userfying until more time has passed just seems like an excuse to get it out of sight until it can be reinserted with a more laudatory tone. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG. any problem raised can be fixed but the problem itself is not a reason for deletion. BabbaQ (talk) 12:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We have had this article since May 2008, based upon his notability as a historian and author. Notability is not temporary, so he does not suddenly become non-notable in July 2016, because of his conviction. Appears to be a COI/PoV nomination - Wikipedia's law of unintended consequences strikes again. - Arjayay (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I lean to delete because (a) this person genuinely is only marginally notable (and that mainly for being something of a thug) and (b) it's more trouble than it's worth. I have sympathy to those who are impatient with a person who used Wikipedia for self-promotion only to demand deletion when the hens come home to roost, but equally we should show some class and allow people to exit with at least some dignity. Guy (Help!) 14:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:PROF; I too have a soft spot for historians, but unfortunately he does not apply. The sources are generally either merely poor (Sources # 1,2,10: LinkedIn, Napoleanic Soc., Amazon) or WP:PRIMARY and only mention him in passing (9 + 10). The only reliable sources the article currently uses (4 - 8, the newspapers) do not reflect any notability as a historian at all- they are testement to his recent conviction, which is therefore the only thing he is 'notable' for. And therefore he also fails WP:PERP. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I honestly want to keep, simply because I find the story behind this guy interesting, but per Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi's argument, I must agree. There simply aren't any reliable sources that make the subject notable enough to merit an article of his own, all scholarly debate aside. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 00:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (the Talk Page) as it is being abused by Tirailleur to push his own particular agenda, including libellous claims against others (myself), an agenda he is also pushing on an external website. He does seem to be a little too obsessed. The Article page is worthy of retention, as the subject has produced a large quantity of material about the Prussian Army of the Napoleonic Wars, so it is a reference point for anyone interested in that subject and the background to the more contentious issues related specifically to the battle of Waterloo. His more recent activities should just be left as mere statements of fact from the media - anyone going for major rants about them is really trying to exploit the current climate in the UK about these matters to push an agenda about a battle, which took place 200 years ago. DaveHMBA (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete -- The books look low level ones for fans. He is explicitly an amateur historian. I get the feeling that there are some COATHANGER issues here too. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hofschroer is notably mainly for being a convicted paedophile. As a historian, he is mainly known for making a nuisance of himself by libelling historian who debunk his books, usually for abuse and misrepresentation of sources material. Most importantly, though, the page about him is being repeatedly defaced by vandals who use it to repeat his conspiracy theories and the smears against the police, his family and the social services that the judge at his criminal trial dismissed. Left like that it brings Wikipedia into severe disrepute. Tirailleur (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think you can make a reasonable case that the subject is notable. Certainly his work has been the subject of reviews in reliable sources (e.g. [17] and some of Chris Troutman's links above). However it is going to be rather difficult to cover him while remaining compliant with WP:BLP given his conviction for possessing indecent images of children [18] and the large number of people trying to insert poorly sourced content claiming there has been a campaign of harassment against him. Given that his notability is somewhat borderline I think think it's worth trying to do this. Hut 8.5 13:59, 10 November 2016 (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.

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. MER-C 12:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel L. S. Harper

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

Despite a great deal of self promotion, own web-sites, blogs, conference proceedings notices and the like, I could find nothing here that establishes any notability. Looks like a blatant puff piece. Had it not been quite so obvious, I would have happily tagged this for notability and see whether it developed, but this looks too bad to ignore. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not much evidence of notability; mostly non-independent sources. Deb (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - like other articles from the same editor, I get no sense that they have grasped the need for independent sources. Blythwood (talk) 06:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not demonstrated. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. No indication of substantial career achievement. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as nothing convincing for WP:ARTIST or WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 4 November 2016 (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.

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vidya Yeravdekar

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

The subject is not an academic. The post of "principle director" of Symbiosis Society doesn't seem to be an academic post. I looked closely and it seems this society was started by her father and she joined it later. I do not see any way the subject satisfies WP:PROF. The coverage about the subject is mostly inherited coverage of the form "Symbiosis principal director, Vidya Yeravdekar, said...", there is hardly any significant coverage focusing on her. In any case, this seems to be a BLP1E. Finally, the entire article is a copyvio. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as certainly not convincing for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF, and there isn't anything else to suggest notability in another capacity. SwisterTwister talk 18:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unremarkable executive; notability is not inherited from institutions that the subject works for, nor from more notable relatives. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable individual Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes, subject fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. What about WP:GNG? Sources: [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], more. (I'm not interested in doing a rewrite as of this moment.). For India-related topics, please use google custom search instead (see WP:INDAFD). Anup [Talk] 22:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tiny cites on GS. Undoubtedly a worthy person but fails WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:02, 3 November 2016 (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.

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khlaif Gharaibeh

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

Subject fails notability criteria per WP:ACADEMIC. Fjmustak (talk) 02:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No impact on field. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as by far nothing for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF, quite noticeably shown by these contents. SwisterTwister talk 18:27, 30 October 2016 (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.

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Valery Kourinsky

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

there are no sources whatsoever in this article and noting notable found in English on the web Domdeparis (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed, no evidence of notability exists on the English web, but crucially, the Ukrainian Wikipedia article for this person has also been deleted (so it seems there wasn't any evidence of notability in Ukrainian either). --♫CheChe♫ talk 14:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Puff piece lacking any kind of coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could not verify notability.RollingFace99 (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced and uncited. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as I'm not noticing anything better for WP:MUSICIAN, WP:PROF or AUTHOR at all, none of what's listed is substantiated or convincing. SwisterTwister talk 23:58, 29 October 2016 (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.

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Matynia-Łyżwińska

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

Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 October 18, there are no procedural grounds to relisting this soon, since a new development has taken place. To summarize, from my DRV comment: Since the first AfD, this article has been deleted from Polish Wikipedia (which usually has much lower criteria for notability): pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/biografie/2016:09:08:Barbara Matynia-Łyżwińska. Closing admin there concluded that a minor/local parish magazine and an obituary are not sufficient. As I feel that the deletion arguments (the subject is not notable either as an architect - all she has here is a short online bio at professional association she was a member of - and as an artist - her work is only mentioned in a local, niche, parish magazine) are significantly stronger then the votes to keep (one of which argued that said parish magazine is a sufficient source, the other that women architects are marginalized so we should keep this article to reduce our gender bias in coverage), and as there is no discussion on article's talk, despite my post there, I think we need to revisit this. Bottom line - not all architects are notable, and this one hasn't done anything to merit being in an encylopedia; ditto as an artist she fails WP:Notability (artists) - her work has not attracted attention form anywhere but said local parish magazine, and the claims of "multiple exhibitions" are not substantiated except said parish article based significantly on interview with the subject. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not all women need Wikipedia articles. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could consider rephrasing this? Because as you wrote it, it comes across as an argument that we should be more willing to delete the article because the subject is female, which is both not in accordance with any of our policies and extremely offensive. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the nominator of the first Afd, I thought there was not enough sources and the keep votes were overruled by more in-depth delete votes. I still stand by that in this second nomination.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:BASIC per comments in first AFD closed September 26, 2016. Hmlarson (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you clarify which comments you find convincing? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find the detailed explanation by Piotrus convincing. We require reliable third party sources and over here it seems the sources are part of the society or a parish magazine. I do not see any claim of significance except for that gold medal - which itself seems to be a niche award and sourced to the society itself. Although the subject was in the pre-internet era and there was a possibility of non-English sources, what convinces me towards a delete is that it was deleted on the Polish Wikipedia itself where Polish speakers could analysed Polish sources as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Polish wikipedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:03, 5 November 2016 (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.

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. Meets WP:ACADEMIC per consensus. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 14:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tore Dybå

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

Self-written vanity page, doesn't meet the prof test Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimfbleak I think it's a bit harsh to just state that this is a vanity page that doesn't meet the prof. test. I thought that meeting the following notability criteria for academics was sufficient? " 1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." The references provided substantiates this through their original, reliable sources showing 1) Ranked as no one on the world based on number of publications and number of citations and 2) receiving a Paper Impact award for the paper with the highest impact in the field during the last 10 years. I'd like to now why you think these facts do not meet the above stated notability guidelines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toredy (talk • contribs) 11:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toredy, please see WP:COI, WP:Autobiography, you should not be writing about yourself. I posted here because there is a claim of notability, and it's not suitable for speedy deletion. You are entitled to post a "keep" response here (start of sentence, bolded, following an asterisk) with your reasons as stated above, and it's then up to others to express their views. If it becomes clear that I've not got this right, I'll withdraw the nom and close this AFD Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jimfbleak, Thank you for your comment, I have read WP:COI, WP:Autobiography, and I understand them. If they trump notability, I will rest my case. But it doesn't seem fair given the thousands of similar, short pages about other (notable) academics. So, what I'd like to see, is that the moderators explain what it is with the two stated achievements that do not meet the academic notability guidelines. I'm just puzzled with what I experience as unfounded attacks...

Keep Writing autobiographies is strongly discouraged but not forbidden. This seems to be a rare case where a notable person has written a pretty decent autobiography. Meets WP:ACADEMIC. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is autobiographical promotion. The article lacks in mainstream, objective, unbiased sources. I think the contents of this article do not meet WP:N, but may be notable enough to be mentioned in an article about the research or relative subject matter. {MordeKyle} ☢ 19:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to Jimfbleak, I could post a "keep" response. So, here it is: Although it's an autobiography, it should be clear from the awards section of the page that the person meets WP:ACADEMIC. I have also done my best to keep the formulations factual and neutral, as if I was writing about someone else. The claim that the article "lacks in mainstream, objective, unbiased sources" should be substantiated with due reference to WP:ACADEMIC and the sources provided in the awards section of the article. Tore (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep -- the article needs to be toned down to look less like a resume, but the subject appears to be notable, see for example author bio from Agile Software Development: Current Research and Future Directions. Most likely meets WP:ACADEMIC and / or WP:AUTHOR. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on basis of GS cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:07, 3 November 2016 (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.

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 redirect to Cedarsong Nature School. Black Kite (talk) 10:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erin K. Kenny

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:AUTHOR. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of sources that would lead to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, found a review of her book Forest Kindergartens: The Cedarsong Way here, which describes her as the founder of the Forest kindergarten - "The arrival of this program (forest kindergarten), its success and the publicity it has received is undoubtedly due to the program's founder, Erin Kenny.", so if more useable sources aren't found a line or two could about her could be added at that article's History section. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, added women project to article talkpage so participants are notified of this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - references integrated in the article and some clean up done. Clearly passes WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hmlarson has done a great job showing the forest kindergarten movement is notable. Kenny, not so much. John from Idegon (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Thanks John! She co-founded the first school in the U.S. and clearly is a leading figure for the movement/educational philosophy. GNG clearly met. Article could use further clean up and expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep. One of the sources says "is considered by forest educators as the mother of the American movement, " - notable enough for me. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Updated)~~Merge and redirect to Forest_kindergarten#History~~ There is hardly any secondary coverage about the subject in reliable independent sources (if there is, please show it, because I cannot see). The subject is best known for founding Cedarsong Nature School which makes it a BLP1E. The coverage is entirely about the school with passing mentions/quotes by the subject. Per WP:NOPAGE and WP:WHYN there shouldn't be a separate page for the subject. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I will go with a delete here. The merge target isn't really appropriate and I don't see a need for a redirect. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tiny cites on GS indicate little impact. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - per my comments above, the sources being proffered for her notability are only passing mention of her, not the coverage in detail required to show notability. Realistically, how can we write a reasonably sourced biography of her when the only info we have is on her involvement with the educational movement? She's alive..... info such as her birth, her family, her education must be included and when all we have info on is the last few years, that cannot happen. If there is any info on the movement that isn't already in the appropriate article, by all means add it, but I see no need for a redirect at this time. John from Idegon (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cedarsong Nature School per WP:BIO1E. No independent notability evident but redirects are cheap and the school appears to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is coverage of her over time. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at least redirect to preserve article edit history. I think there is adequate indicia of notability, and this is more than BIO1E, she is a founder of a new movement in preschool education and the movement is worldwide. This is a big deal and she is a leader within it with a longstanding history of involvement, (note [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], etc. Montanabw^(talk) 06:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Redirect instead as what's listed above is still not what is actually expected from a genuine article nor is what's in the current article convincing, therefore there's also then nothing for noticeable independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:59, 7 November 2016 (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.

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lucinda Bassett

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

No credible claim of significance, fails WP:NOTABILITY. Piece also reads as very promotional. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is a stub and requires time to be developed. The numerous sources in the article establish the notability. Her infomercial is one of the most recognized and ubiquitous in history: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrJDsJl2ELY She's a bestselling author and has been on every major talk show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2Wt2pCCct0 Her products are bestsellers on Amazon and with glowing reviews: http://www.amazon.com/Attacking-Anxiety-Depression-Drug-Free-Self-Help/dp/B000SO5IMI Plus, she's a well-known radio talk show host in LA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUvL7albR90 Copy Editor (talk) 02:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 05:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 05:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 05:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 05:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Fails WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC. Yet one more from the seemingly infinite queue of self-help salespeople. I can find no significant coverage online from WP:RS, just a metric ton of self-promotion and press releases, and a few interviews in local press (e.g. Malibu Times, cited). There's some fairly interesting (mostly negative) discussion of her work by real psychologists on blogs, but again that's not WP:RS. Article was already speedied db-bio once in 2007, and once again yesterday. This latest attempt was created as Lucinda Redick Bassett for some reason, and linked by that name from self help by the same editor. Wikishovel (talk) 05:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I linked this page to the self-help page because she is a self-help author. I created this page as "Lucinda Redick Bassett" because that is her name. Copy Editor (talk) 11:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No impact on literature. Nauseatingly promotional. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment i'm the one who started this page and the one who wrote it. I am not affiliated with the subject whatsoever and therefore this page is not written in an attempt to be promotional. The information I included was an attempt to make it verifiable and to demonstrate notability. Copy Editor (talk) 07:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Draft instead and I'm willing to take care of it while there because WorldCat shows over 2,000 library collections and these books are by major publishing companies which is in fact satisfying the authors notability (highest held book is in nearly 900 library alone), so that is improvable, and that is surely a sign of available book reviews and, once achieved with that, this is notable. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Good point. I don't understand how an author who is published by such big publishers isn't notable, particularly given that at least one of the books was a bestseller that was translated into foreign languages. https://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n95075001/ Copy Editor (talk) 07:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So many books are published by regular publishers that they can't all be notable. They will sell, probably, because of the vastly greater publicity that the publisher can generate, as opposed to the self-published who have to do all the work themselves. But sales are not what Wikipedia works on. I'd think ST is right on this, that more work is needed and a move to Draft space could be beneficial. Peridon (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But what is a draft space? Copy Editor (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Different areas on Wikipedia have prefixes to the page names - this page in in the Wikipedia: (or WP:) space. This is for sort of official space. User: is user space, Special: is for odd things that the technically minded know all about (or claim they do...), Template: is for guess what, and articles don't have a prefix because that would confuse visitors even more than than now. Draft: is a fairly recent space, which is for things under construction that aren't yet ready for article space. In Draft: space, anyone can help to build a draft up (though I would doubt that very much of this goes on unless someone like ST offers help here at AfD). The alternative is moving to your userspace (where outside help is even less likely without direct appeal) and that would be to User:Copy Editor/title. In both user and draft spaces, the patrollers can usually only tag for copyvio, attack, advertising or hoax. Using either of these spaces is like using a nursery rather than scattering seeds in the garden. Peridon (talk) 11:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've done some clean up and expansion with additional references. Meets WP:AUTHOR #3 and WP:GNG. Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 02:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clean-up. The BLP is smarter but notability is still not improved. I still vote delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe: Wikipedia's notability is defined outside of Wikipedia, and WP:N is not a content guideline, so it makes no sense to say that after an edit, "notability is...not improved". Unscintillating (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not improved because no better sources have been found. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

In 2001, Bassett took part in a collaborative venture alongside Roberta Flack, Diana Krall, F. Murray Abraham, and Nona Hendryx, all of whom contributed a track to the meditation album "Visionary Path." Bassett narrated a track called "Mountains." [30] [31] Copy Editor (talk) 09:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Adequate indicia of notability, published and a number of works. The tone is too promotional, but there have been improvements, and again, article quality is not a notability question. Montanabw^(talk) 06:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- worth keeping at this point under WP:AUTHOR; thanks for the improvements. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:13, 5 November 2016 (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.

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, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Junius P. Rodriguez

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

Not a notable individual. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR, and WP:NACADEMIC. Also fails WP:POLITICIAN. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rodriguez has achieved a strong reputation in history scholarship, with many reviews in leading scholarly journals praising his work as editor of major reference books in history of slavery. He won the top academic award of the American Library Association for a reference book--they give ONE book the award every year, so it's a top recognition for scholarship. He is cited in obver 200 scholarly books and articles according to google.scholar Visibility among editors = good, as numerous scholarly journals have called on him to review major monographs (including . Journal of Southern History, Journal of Social History, History: Reviews of New Books, Louisiana History, Southern Studies, Register of the Kentucky Historical Society, Journal of Illinois History and Journal of the Early Republic. That's national recognition. Rjensen (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable under WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR as expert is his field and editor of notable books(s). The ALA listing is sufficient to show that. (But that he has reviewed books for various major journals is not only not an indication of importance, but not even worth mentioning in the article--such reviews are very minor pieces of work, and we never include them in academic bios. DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I don't see what has changed since the previous AfD; clearly notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable works and sufficient independent coverage. Kierzek (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article does not well-establish the notability the keep voters seem to identify. I don't blame Muboshgu for making the nomination of such poorly-done article. I would otherwise suggest userfying this entry so it can be cleaned up before returning to mainspace if not for a growing keep consensus. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the article a bit. I believe the subject's notability is a bit clearer now. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list of books published or edited by him should be sufficient to warrant preserving this. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty clear what the consensus is. I withdraw. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficient career achievement to merit encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2016 (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.

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. Sam Walton (talk) 11:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sergiy Kurbatov

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

No sources at all Domdeparis (talk) 12:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 16:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 16:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No pass of WP:Prof on GS cites. Not much else. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in the article looks like a claim that would lead to notability and his Scholar profile shows only single-digit citations. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a vanity page on an unremarkable individual. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:38, 3 November 2016 (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.

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. Sam Walton (talk) 11:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Higgins

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

Fails all criteria of WP:NACADEMIC: Google Scholar does not suggest frequent citation, and regular Google results are sparse as well. —swpb^T 12:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 12:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 12:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 12:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 12:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep -- Google books prevew returns what appears to be sufficient mentions, including a reference to his works as a "breakthrough" and a "comprehensive study of Canadian local politics". K.e.coffman (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Seems to have sufficient citations on Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=higgins+djh&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5 and on Google search. He is variously named as "Douglas Higgins", "DJH Higgins", and combinations thereof. Theo (Talk) 12:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm only seeing an h-index of 4 on Google scholar for author:djh-higgins — this may not mean much for this area, where book publishing rather than journal articles may be more the norm, but it's definitely not enough to form the basis of a keep opinion here. Worldcat shows ok library holdings for his two books (296 for "Urban Canada : its government and politics" and 118 for "Local and urban politics in Canada") but I'd be more convinced by in-depth reviews of these books than by numbers. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to meet notability guidelines and is noted academically. -- Dane2007 ^talk 14:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the scholar search and the results provided by K.e.coffman are enough to merit inclusion in my opinion. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and hope for improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:15, 5 November 2016 (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.

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 16:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Bleitrach

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC: Has a small number of academic citations per Google Scholar, and no other criteria of the guideline are apparently met—nor is there support for notability for her political activities. —swpb^T 13:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 13:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 13:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 13:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The nomination baldly states, "nor is there support for notability for her political activities". I am mystified as to what nominator means.
Practically none of the individuals the wikipedia covers in standalone biographical article have had their wikipedia notability established with a single notability factor -- like winning a Victoria Cross. For practically all these individuals their notability is established by adding up all their notability factors.
This nomination cannot make a blanket dismissal of the fact Bleitrach was a long-serving member of the French Communist Party's Central Committee.
I don't know if she fully measures up to WP:NACADEMIC, or merely comes close. But, if nominator claims she doesn't why does a google books search on "Danielle Bleitrach" trigger over 2000 hits? Geo Swan (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We do, in fact, use single factors in the sense that we identify a notability guideline that one satisfies, and yes, there is one for WP:POLITICIAN. Her position would not seem to satisfy it per se. I have not done any homework on this article yet, but a quick glance shows that there are some obvious warning flags, especially that it is entirely self-sourced. Agricola44 (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you've said about the politics angle is correct (nothing about party committee membership, no matter how long, satisfies WP:POLITICIAN), and as for the academic angle, I would point out the near-worthlessness of a GBooks search that doesn't exclude the subject's own works. This search cuts the results by 3/4, and reveals some more academic citations, but no apparent biographical coverage. And I don't know what guideline this "adding up of notability factors" concept comes from. WP:BASIC allows for combining sources, but so far we have no independent sources offering biographical coverage to combine. @Geo Swan: I'm getting tired of seeing "keep" arguments that ignore the guidelines—I hope it's not something you make a habit of. If you disagree with the guidelines, there are venues to address that. —swpb^T 19:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not yet met WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Does not meet any notability guidelines for academics and her political roles are not enough to meet the guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Had a chance to take a closer look. Agree that political roles do not confer notability per se. She has published quite a few books, but a WorldCat search indicates that none have more than double-digit holdings, which is pretty small by our conventions. It is true that these are in french, so that may affect the numbers, but another factor that we usually count significantly in such cases is whether any books have been translated...I don't see that. GS shows a few citations (h-index 5), but that is far below our academic threshold. Don't see anything in newspapers and such, so probably no real argument for GNG either. Agricola44 (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Daniel Bleitrach is a noted French marxist academic and sociologist, of Jewish origin, born in 1938. Her Wikipedia biography does her no credit and needs to be cleaned up, rewritten, expanded. I have only just started editing it and will continue to do so in the following days. --Elnon (talk) 02:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The WorldCat numbers are actually pretty low by our AfD convention. Agricola44 (talk) 23:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Keep -- appears to have decent library holdings per WorldCat: link. I'm not an expert in using WorldCat Identities, but it was explained to me at User talk:DGG#Worldcat holdings that WC does not do a good job of indexing non U.S. based libraries and works that are not in English. With this in mind, this appears passable. Sources also possibly exist in French or off line. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WorldCat is the most comprehensive book database there is. I already commented above that the French language of her publications may slant a little low, we would look for something to have been translated...that would definitely help for notability. I have not found such yet. Agricola44 (talk) 23:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the balance of things, the subject appears to be notable. It also helps that a French Wiki article exists: link. The article is not in the best of shapes, but the fact that someone bothered to create it suggests to me that there are possibly enough sources out there to support an en Wiki article. I would be hesitant to delete an a page on a subject that is covered in an inter language Wiki (other than English). K.e.coffman (talk) 07:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To state the obvious, the "possible" existence of better sources, and the existence of an article on another wiki (which is itself tagged for lack of sources), carry zero weight (see WP:MUSTBESOURCES, WP:OTHERLANGS). Please do not use these or any of the other flawed arguments laid out in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions; as ever, better sources need to be demonstrated if the article is to be kept. —swpb^T 12:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: Are you now saying that Wikipedia internal references to itself and speculation that there may be "possibly enough sources out there" are your arguments for "keep"? I have done some checking an could not find any such sources. You might be able to find them, but absent that, your bald speculation alone is not convincing. Agricola44 (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I have expressed my opinion via my !vote based on my prior experience at AfDs and I would appreciate not being badgered. As far as coverage / sources are concerned, here's a 200+ book apparently dedicated to the subjet: Une Vie pour lutter: entretiens avec Danielle Bleitrach (1984) ("A life to fight: inteviews with Danielle Bleitrach"). Again, this is indicative of the subject being notable IMO. I will let the community decide on whether this is indeed so. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously need to revise your interpretation of "badgering". Taking apart faulty reasoning isn't badgering, it's exactly how AfDs are supposed to work. Maybe you've seen reasoning like that on other AfDs, but now you know better. Now to the new case: that book appears to list Bleitrach as an author, which rather undermines its independence. —swpb^T 17:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Debating is not badgering. Indeed, substantive debate (what is going right now) is the very purpose of AfD, not just !voting and prancing off to the next task. As for the book just mentioned, Une Vie pour lutter, WorldCat and Google Books likewise list Bleitrach as an author. It's a little strange, given the title, but the fact that she seems to have had some role in authorship and that the book is held in <50 libraries worldwide would seem to be another non-starter. Sorry. Agricola44 (talk) 18:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, let's calm down everyone. It is bad for Wikipedia if some of the people who actually critically evaluate notability at AfDs start sniping at each other. Coming back to the topics, here are some of my thoughts

For notability, any one criterion has to be fully satisfied. Half of one and half another doesn't help. Coverage can be added up for GNG but we do not add up notability criteria itself.
GNG is hard to satisfy here, although it might be worth looking into French newspaper archives
It is true that the subject won't pass WP:NPOL. Notability has to be demonstrated using another criterion
WP:PROF is harder to satisfy here considering the low citation rate. None of the other criteria at WP:NACADEMIC are satisfied as well
The best bet is WP:AUTHOR. WorldCat holdings do not guarantee notability, but are a good indication that the subject might be significant. Over here the fact that the subject's books are in French but are still kept in multiple libraries is an indication of significance. I would prefer to research more at this point rather than go with a keep or delete. There is a good chance that reviews of her books might exist. Some of them were also in the pre-internet age, so newspaper archives need to be looked into. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I don't think google scholar/books searches for her name does justice to the number of citations she has and her impact. Consider a books search and a scholar search for her book, "Classe Ouvriere et Social-Democratie", which google scholar thinks is cited 33 times. Reading through the results of that google book search as well as google book searches using other works of hers, I feel she is notable. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Normally one looks for many hundreds of citations to pass WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I suppose in hard sciences, but I'm not sure. In any case, I think the point that her impact is understated by google scholar citations stands, whether it meets your criteria or not.

Citations compare like-with like, i.e. with people engaged in the same activities. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I did notice that her seven books from her bibliography is included in a book which is in its entirety a collection of social science bibliographies of 378 authors [32]. I can't exactly judge how good of a source that is, but it seems somewhat reliable. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked all the way through the GoogleBooks link you supplied and counted 24 citations. As Xxan said, this is a very small number according to our long-established AfD conventions for PROF. I think you have the same problem as criticizing WorldCat as not being representative of institutional holdings of her books. GB is the most comprehensive source for this information. Is it just possible that she doesn't have as much impact as you think/like? Agricola44 (talk) 22:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I agree that it is hard to judge whether or not an academic has had a notable impact. I'm not an expert in Marxist sociology, and can't say for sure whether or not Bleitrach has had an impact. It is possible that she hasn't had a notable impact, but my reading of works referencing her is that she has. I agree, I could be wrong. It is possible that she hasn't had a notable impact. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All you have to do is look at her GS citations and compare them with those of other Marxist historians for example Eric Hobsbawm, who has around 50,000. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

AfD isn't about comparison, per se, and !votes aren't ignored because someone's reasoning is opposed. It looks to me like the article continues to improve (which is a great outcome, I hope you agree), and I still !vote keep. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. 24 is minuscule. —swpb^T 12:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me Danielle Bleitrach is a sociologist, not a historian. --Elnon (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sociologists get higher cites, so the comparison is worse. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - There are numerous notability guidelines. Cursory Google News search indicates WP:BASIC met to start in addition to WP:ACADEMIC. Don't badger. Hmlarson (talk) 03:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it doesn't, as thoroughly broken down above. Unless you have some new argument to add, the closing admin will ignore your vote. —swpb^T 12:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not establish that there are adequate reliable independent sources about her to sustain an article. French academics tend to generate a lot of more or less superficial printed matter by and about them almost as a matter of course, so a closer look at the quality and nature of the sources is indispensable, and the discussion above does not really do that. Sandstein 23:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've found and am adding to the entry ~~four~~five reviews of books she co-authored--one longer one from an academic journal and three shorter ones from Le Monde Diplomatique, ETA: and a fourth middle-sized one from Le Monde Diplo (Innisfree987 (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)), all of which I found without delving into paywalled or pre-Internet-era sources. Le Monde Diplomatique only counts for one source for notability (rightly, in my opinion, as I'd like to see more perspectives represented in the entry), but if LMD has reviewed (at least) ~~three~~four of someone's books, to me it's a foregone conclusion that other reliable sources have reviewed some of them too. The entry needs more work but I don't think it's a deletion candidate. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh goodness. I seem to have missed completely that there was already a list of independent, reliably sourced "Reviews of the author's contributions" within the entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Danielle_Bleitrach&oldid=747485357 It included two I mentioned and four more I hadn't found yet. Work reviewed in Le Monde Diplo, La Voix du Nord, La Pensée, Les Annales, and still more clears the notability hurdles easily to me, whether GNG or AUTHOR. As an editorial matter I think it's vastly preferable that we convert these refs to inline citations match with the entry text they support (since, clearly, it was too easy to overlook them as they stand!), and inadvertently I've already started on that while reffing up the entry from my google search, so I'll continue to delete dupes as I go and then delete that subsection, but in the meantime, I am more than satisfied we have plenty to found a solid entry. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: clear indicia of notability. Article needs work, but quality issues are independent of notability. This article passes GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 19:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete For 2 reasons. The first is the claims that she is important as a political figure, but she held only minor offices in a Party that was in marked decline in the decades when she participated. The second claim is the impact of her scholarchip,but that impact of her scholarship has not been demonstrated. She appears to be a good example of the phenomenon of Francophone scholars whose work has impact only within the French language scholarly community. There are, of course, Francophone scholars whose work has impact on scholarship in other language communities, including English. But Bleitrach appears to write within a French Marxist tradition that forms a walled garden encompassing a community of French Marxists, and her work appears to be of near-zero interest to economists, political scientists or historians elsewhere. (When the work of French Marxists journalists/politicians/scholars attracts outside interest, it gets translated) Article was created in 2011 by translating the French article; only 1 article links to it. Before the AFD, article got 2 or 3 page hits per day. Therefore, it seem appropriate to have a French article about her, but no an article on the English Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 07:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That she is of interest in"the Francophone" community is adequate, we don't require international stature, or at least if we do not require it of American or British people, we do not want to hold someone who is French to a double standard. If she's notable enough for you to argue there should be an article on fr. wiki, then there also should be an article on en. wiki; I do not agree with your logic on that one. Montanabw^(talk) 05:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will press on this point a little because it's relevant to some work I'd planned, so I want to make sure I understand policy here--I did not understand any of the guidelines to require international attention; my experience at AfD is that national stature is regularly viewed as sufficient. Likewise I actually thought en-wiki encouraged the writing of articles on topics outside the anglophone world (hence WMF's big investment in the translation tool: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Content_translation), as long as it's sourced to our usual standards of reliable secondary material. Sum of all human knowledge and all that jazz. No? Innisfree987 (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is relevant, but you might want to go dig up more source material per WP:HEY to make a stronger case. The "notable for France but not for English wiki" argument is, IMHO, not an accurate statement of the guidelines. Montanabw^(talk) 05:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Subject seems to miss NACADEMIC, NPOLITICIAN, and NBASIC, but perhaps the book reviews might make this a ppass of NAUTHOR and this aspect should perhaps be discussed in more detail. Randykitty (talk) 11:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject may fail all four SNGs mentioned by narrow margins (or may pass them), but the cumulative coverage appears to satisfy the GNG, and the delete !votes focus on the SNGs and don't make a solid case against her meeting the GNG. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to note the significant number of secondary sources added to this entry since the last delete ivote; and also mention three more I've found engaging her commentary on Dieudonne, from Rue 89 (and again a year later), FranceInfo, and the New York Times. Mine are all things I found without delving into paywalled or pre-internet sources.

While I'm here I'll also reiterate that I think it imperative we take non-anglophone sources and perspectives as seriously as we do those in English. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources provided show she passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The subject appears to fail WP:ACADEMIC, WP:NAUTHOR, WP:POLITICIAN. I am not very convinced at the idea that someone can be a little bit of all of these things, and therefore pass some combination. In any case, that seems to be a radical interpretation of policy. I could easily be convinced with better secondary sources that she passes GNG, but those in the article do not. The few independent secondary sources cited in the article do not rise to the level of "significant coverage". Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some of her books translated into Spanish [33], [34]. The Berthold Brecht and Fritz Lang in French and German, held by major U.S universities [35], [36] . Also on Open library [37] and a number of databases worldwide [38] .--DDupard (talk) 11:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Google Book search gives 1,550 hits, tons of other books reference her. --Soman (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That she's a Frenchie commie pinko doesn't matter. What matters is her books are well-read and held in many libraries. That is good for either WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. Bearian (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Touché!--DDupard (talk) 07:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Weak delete: As per User:Sławomir Biały above. Overall, the subject fails WP:BIO and appears to be a little bit of everything without meeting any specific criteria. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:21, 24 November 2016 (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.

Academics and educators Proposed deletions

Mohammad Hassan Tahririan (via WP:PROD on 28 October 2016)
Michael Newman (writer) (via WP:PROD on 27 October 2016)
Süreyya Hiç (via WP:BLP-PROD on 27 October 2016)
Wolfgang Behringer (via WP:BLP-PROD on 27 October 2016)
Herijanto Soeprapto (via WP:PROD on 26 October 2016)
Ajdar Ismailov (via WP:BLP-PROD on 25 October 2016)
Bartłomiej Sipiński (via WP:PROD on 25 October 2016)
Jonas Rimantas Stonis (via WP:PROD on 24 October 2016)
Abhik Roy (via WP:BLP-PROD on 24 October 2016)
Sundaram Natarajan (via WP:PROD on 24 October 2016)
P. Raja (via WP:PROD on 24 October 2016)
Vitaliy Lukashevych (via WP:PROD on 24 October 2016)
Janusz Rębielak (via WP:PROD on 24 October 2016)
Germán Sierra (via WP:PROD on 23 October 2016)
C hamza sahib (via WP:BLP-PROD on 23 October 2016)
Zachary Burell (via WP:PROD on 23 October 2016)
Pooran Chand Joshi (via WP:BLP-PROD on 22 October 2016)
António Moura Santos de Portugal (via WP:BLP-PROD on 20 October 2016)