| Revision as of 06:54, 1 August 2014 editXxanthippe (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers20,496 edits ?← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:38, 1 August 2014 edit undoCarolmooredc (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,944 edits KeepNext edit → | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| *'''Delete''' pending other improvements to the article. At the moment, these are not significant, in-depth coverage, just evidence that she's published some articles and is an art historian - not that she's a notable one. ] (]) 15:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' pending other improvements to the article. At the moment, these are not significant, in-depth coverage, just evidence that she's published some articles and is an art historian - not that she's a notable one. ] (]) 15:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete'''. GS ] of 4. Not there yet. ] (]) 06:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC). | *'''Delete'''. GS ] of 4. Not there yet. ] (]) 06:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC). | ||
| *'''Keep''' Obviously of interest in academia considering the various refs. Put a "more refs needed" tag on it. If she was a male historian with that many refs I doubt she'd be considered for AfD at all. Let's be inclusionist here. <small>'''] (])</small>''' 16:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:38, 1 August 2014
Elinor Gadon
- Elinor Gadon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article fails general notability guidelines. Articles are supposed to have multiple, indepth, independent soruces. We have one, in-depth source that comes from Gadon's employer and is not clearly independent. She also seems to not meet any of the guidelines for inclusion of academics. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Little to no coverage in independent reliable sources. Jinkinson talk to me 17:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep article did fail notability guidelines but has since been improved with numerous reliable references. Subject is a notable art history scholar who is widely quoted by other historians and easily meets the GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- Your reasons? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC).
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 10:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete pending other improvements to the article. At the moment, these are not significant, in-depth coverage, just evidence that she's published some articles and is an art historian - not that she's a notable one. AdventurousMe (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. GS h-index of 4. Not there yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC).
- Keep Obviously of interest in academia considering the various refs. Put a "more refs needed" tag on it. If she was a male historian with that many refs I doubt she'd be considered for AfD at all. Let's be inclusionist here. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)