Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olivia Milburn

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. Article meets WP:NAUTHOR, as demonstrated post-improvements by David Eppstein. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Milburn

[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)

Doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria at WP:ACADEMIC. The Book Award isn't really prestigious, to my knowledge. She's not highly regarded in the field (perhaps decades down the road) and isn't a holder of a distinguished chair at a major university. White Whirlwind 咨 06:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject fails WP:NPROF in all criteria. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just added 11 published reviews, at least two each for four of her books. I think that's enough for WP:AUTHOR. And the China Daily and WSJ sources go a long way towards WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR. XOR'easter (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:AUTHOR, a number of her books are "well known" ie. Cherishing Antiquity in a couple of hundred libraries (a good indicator), and have plenty of reviews (meeting WP:NBOOK, and entitled to standalones), winning a Special Book Award of China, although there is no WP article for it (yet:), also means she probably meets WP:ANYBIO - "1.The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". Coolabahapple (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, certainly meets WP:NAUTHOR with the reviews added by David Eppstein. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the sources added suffice for the subject to pass WP:NAUTHOR. Mccapra (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2019 (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.