Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marina Caskey

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 speedy keep. "Nomination withdrawn". (non-admin closure) SirEd ^Dimmi!!! 03:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Caskey[edit]

[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)

Article doesn't pass WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. Two of the references are dead and the other refs only mention her. No in-depth coverage from WP:RS or WP:IS. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 04:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 04:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 04:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 04:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a high-citation field but despite that her citation record (three publications with over 500 cites on Google scholar, many more with over 200) looks strong enough for WP:PROF#C1. And there's in-depth sourcing available to make a verifiable article at pages like [1] — it's not independent but it doesn't need to be for WP:PROF-based notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, concur that the citation record evident on google scholar shows this is strong enough for NPROF-1.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as others have said, seems to meet WP:NPROF. Also, WP:DINC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per David Eppstein NHCLS (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I checked and the article should be kept, also as per David Eppstein Dorota Uchis (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:PROF#C1. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 18:55, 26 July 2021 (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.