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.
I'm not sure if this can be improved as my searches found no good results with
this and
this being the best results. It also seems there's no good move target aside from her son's article
Ben Wikler. It seems several of the editors aren't very active aside from
DGG (which removed the speedy and I know this subject interests him) and also notifying author
Paulbaker55. Summarily, there's simply nothing to suggest improvement and nothing to suggest FAST is notable enough for its own article.
SwisterTwistertalk 07:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. I couldn't find significant independent coverage of her contributions to education. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 19:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep I found a lot of information about significant contributions. FAST is extremely important and cited quite a lot in both educational and social-work journals and books...and I've only just gotten started. It's late for me here, so I'll see what I can turn up tomorrow, but I think I've shown a good start on my edits to the page.
Megalibrarygirl (
talk) 05:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep why was this even nominated? Clearly she meets GNG.
She invented a program that "is implemented in over 2000 schools in 14 countries, including in 49 states in the US". What earthly difference does it make if the editors aren't active? No one owns the article, and notability by definition is neither derived from anyone else nor fleeting. If you don't understand what notability is, please stop nominating articles for deletion. If you are too lazy to improve them, at least just tag them for improvement.
SusunW (
talk) 15:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
☮JAaron95Talk 17:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep per
WP:HEY. The article now documents contributions that appear to pass
WP:PROF#C7. Striking my earlier comment. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 18:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep: Clear indicia of GNG, third-party sources and article improvement.
Montanabw(talk) 02:35, 10 September 2015 (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.
I'm not sure if this can be improved as my searches found no good results with
this and
this being the best results. It also seems there's no good move target aside from her son's article
Ben Wikler. It seems several of the editors aren't very active aside from
DGG (which removed the speedy and I know this subject interests him) and also notifying author
Paulbaker55. Summarily, there's simply nothing to suggest improvement and nothing to suggest FAST is notable enough for its own article.
SwisterTwistertalk 07:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. I couldn't find significant independent coverage of her contributions to education. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 19:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep I found a lot of information about significant contributions. FAST is extremely important and cited quite a lot in both educational and social-work journals and books...and I've only just gotten started. It's late for me here, so I'll see what I can turn up tomorrow, but I think I've shown a good start on my edits to the page.
Megalibrarygirl (
talk) 05:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep why was this even nominated? Clearly she meets GNG.
She invented a program that "is implemented in over 2000 schools in 14 countries, including in 49 states in the US". What earthly difference does it make if the editors aren't active? No one owns the article, and notability by definition is neither derived from anyone else nor fleeting. If you don't understand what notability is, please stop nominating articles for deletion. If you are too lazy to improve them, at least just tag them for improvement.
SusunW (
talk) 15:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
☮JAaron95Talk 17:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep per
WP:HEY. The article now documents contributions that appear to pass
WP:PROF#C7. Striking my earlier comment. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 18:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep: Clear indicia of GNG, third-party sources and article improvement.
Montanabw(talk) 02:35, 10 September 2015 (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.