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.
Fails
PROF (and
GNG). Majority of refs on the article are primary, and the only things I can find on Google (using a variety of search terms) is variations on "said Vernon" or other one-sentence mentions.
Primefac (
talk) 01:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep as primary sources is only how we can specific and. exact information from this field and area, and WorldCat shows a major holding for one book published by UniversityNebraska, this would be enough.
SwisterTwistertalk 19:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Where does "has written a book" appear in
WP:PROF?
Primefac (
talk) 00:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete Wikipedia is not to contain original research, if an article is based on primary sources it needs to be scrapped.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 20:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk) 01:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
UY ScutiTalk 20:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - Very little sign of notability. Not enough for its own article space.
Scorpion293 (
talk) 20:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep -- her book is widely held in the US & internationally (1364 libraries according to Worldcat); chair of her department; fine for a low-cited field, per
User:Xxanthippe. --
phoebe / (
talk to me) 03:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)reply
I am not all that persuaded by library holdings. A book can sit on the selves for decades without being taken out. Usage would be more useful, but is not available.
Xxanthippe (
talk) 00:34, 29 December 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.
Fails
PROF (and
GNG). Majority of refs on the article are primary, and the only things I can find on Google (using a variety of search terms) is variations on "said Vernon" or other one-sentence mentions.
Primefac (
talk) 01:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep as primary sources is only how we can specific and. exact information from this field and area, and WorldCat shows a major holding for one book published by UniversityNebraska, this would be enough.
SwisterTwistertalk 19:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Where does "has written a book" appear in
WP:PROF?
Primefac (
talk) 00:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete Wikipedia is not to contain original research, if an article is based on primary sources it needs to be scrapped.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 20:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk) 01:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
UY ScutiTalk 20:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - Very little sign of notability. Not enough for its own article space.
Scorpion293 (
talk) 20:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep -- her book is widely held in the US & internationally (1364 libraries according to Worldcat); chair of her department; fine for a low-cited field, per
User:Xxanthippe. --
phoebe / (
talk to me) 03:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)reply
I am not all that persuaded by library holdings. A book can sit on the selves for decades without being taken out. Usage would be more useful, but is not available.
Xxanthippe (
talk) 00:34, 29 December 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.