- 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The result was withdrawn with no dissenting opinions. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Evelyn Rawski
- Evelyn Rawski ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article does not currently meet guidelines for academic notability as outlined in WP:NACADEMICS. Fisheriesmgmt ( talk) 01:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Withdrawn by nominator: Notability established by outside sources. Fisheriesmgmt ( talk) 02:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Strong keep She is a VERY notable historian especially in Qing dynasty studies, and the virtual founder of the American school known as the New Qing History rose in the 1990s. -- Evecurid ( talk) 01:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep The above editor is biased because they have only edited in areas regarding Asian history. Yet, surprisingly, they are correct. Passes criteria 1 "has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" and 3 "has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association". She meets crit 1 because she is considered to be a "seminal figure of New Qing History" [1]. Meets crit 3 because she may be or may have been the President of the Association of Asian Studies [2]. -- Mr. Guye ( talk) 02:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye ( talk) 02:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye ( talk) 02:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye ( talk) 02:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye ( talk) 02:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye ( talk) 02:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye ( talk) 02:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.
Mr. Guye (
talk) 02:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- @
Mr. Guye: After consulting the sources you've linked, I agree with you that this article is worth keeping, however it's important that these sources (or other appropriate sources) be cited in the article. As it exists right now, there's no evidence that Rawski is notable--the presence of supporting information elsewhere on the internet is meaningless if it's not cited in the article, correct?
Fisheriesmgmt (
talk) 02:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- In this case, you should simply request more sources to be cited rather than asking for deletion. At least you should remove the deletion template now. --
Evecurid (
talk) 02:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Hi @ Evecurid:, I've removed the deletion and notability templates but I have left the BLP request for citation template. I really do appreciate the work you've put into this article and I look forward to seeing this article more fully cited so the notability of the subject will no longer be in question. Fisheriesmgmt ( talk) 02:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- In this case, you should simply request more sources to be cited rather than asking for deletion. At least you should remove the deletion template now. --
Evecurid (
talk) 02:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- @
Mr. Guye: After consulting the sources you've linked, I agree with you that this article is worth keeping, however it's important that these sources (or other appropriate sources) be cited in the article. As it exists right now, there's no evidence that Rawski is notable--the presence of supporting information elsewhere on the internet is meaningless if it's not cited in the article, correct?
Fisheriesmgmt (
talk) 02:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- 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 withdrawn with no dissenting opinions. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Evelyn Rawski
- Evelyn Rawski ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article does not currently meet guidelines for academic notability as outlined in WP:NACADEMICS. Fisheriesmgmt ( talk) 01:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Withdrawn by nominator: Notability established by outside sources. Fisheriesmgmt ( talk) 02:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Strong keep She is a VERY notable historian especially in Qing dynasty studies, and the virtual founder of the American school known as the New Qing History rose in the 1990s. -- Evecurid ( talk) 01:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep The above editor is biased because they have only edited in areas regarding Asian history. Yet, surprisingly, they are correct. Passes criteria 1 "has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" and 3 "has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association". She meets crit 1 because she is considered to be a "seminal figure of New Qing History" [1]. Meets crit 3 because she may be or may have been the President of the Association of Asian Studies [2]. -- Mr. Guye ( talk) 02:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye ( talk) 02:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye ( talk) 02:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye ( talk) 02:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye ( talk) 02:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye ( talk) 02:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye ( talk) 02:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.
Mr. Guye (
talk) 02:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- @
Mr. Guye: After consulting the sources you've linked, I agree with you that this article is worth keeping, however it's important that these sources (or other appropriate sources) be cited in the article. As it exists right now, there's no evidence that Rawski is notable--the presence of supporting information elsewhere on the internet is meaningless if it's not cited in the article, correct?
Fisheriesmgmt (
talk) 02:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- In this case, you should simply request more sources to be cited rather than asking for deletion. At least you should remove the deletion template now. --
Evecurid (
talk) 02:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Hi @ Evecurid:, I've removed the deletion and notability templates but I have left the BLP request for citation template. I really do appreciate the work you've put into this article and I look forward to seeing this article more fully cited so the notability of the subject will no longer be in question. Fisheriesmgmt ( talk) 02:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- In this case, you should simply request more sources to be cited rather than asking for deletion. At least you should remove the deletion template now. --
Evecurid (
talk) 02:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- @
Mr. Guye: After consulting the sources you've linked, I agree with you that this article is worth keeping, however it's important that these sources (or other appropriate sources) be cited in the article. As it exists right now, there's no evidence that Rawski is notable--the presence of supporting information elsewhere on the internet is meaningless if it's not cited in the article, correct?
Fisheriesmgmt (
talk) 02:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- 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.