- 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. (non-admin closure) Kieran207( talk- Contribs) 18:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Willene Johnson
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Willene Johnson ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
With the Fortune nod, thought there would be more about this very accomplished economist. Doesn't really fit into WP:NSCHOLAR, although she has written some articles, with extremely low cite counts. And can't find enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 14:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. I started this article. The subject is a former president of the National Economic Association, which fits criteria #6 of WP:NACADEMIC. If you want to argue that the National Economic Association is not a major academic society, and that the presidency of that organization is not sufficient proof of notability, you're arguing to remove the pages for about half the subjects in Category:African-American_economists. Is that really what you want to argue for?-- EAWH ( talk) 15:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Lots of stuff found in Google Scholar, mostly relating to the UN or what have you, seems to satisfy the requirements. Oaktree b ( talk) 17:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep under crtiera 6 of NACADEMIC per EAWH's reasoning. MarginalCost ( talk) 21:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:NACADEMIC criteria 6 and the addition of sources and information from sources in the article that add biographical and encyclopedic content, including her impact in the area of higher education, supporting Black women in the field of economics. Beccaynr ( talk) 23:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Meets WP:NACADEMIC criteria #6. Pilean ( talk) 07:14, 23 March 2021 (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Kieran207( talk- Contribs) 18:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Willene Johnson
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Willene Johnson ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
With the Fortune nod, thought there would be more about this very accomplished economist. Doesn't really fit into WP:NSCHOLAR, although she has written some articles, with extremely low cite counts. And can't find enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 14:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. I started this article. The subject is a former president of the National Economic Association, which fits criteria #6 of WP:NACADEMIC. If you want to argue that the National Economic Association is not a major academic society, and that the presidency of that organization is not sufficient proof of notability, you're arguing to remove the pages for about half the subjects in Category:African-American_economists. Is that really what you want to argue for?-- EAWH ( talk) 15:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Lots of stuff found in Google Scholar, mostly relating to the UN or what have you, seems to satisfy the requirements. Oaktree b ( talk) 17:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep under crtiera 6 of NACADEMIC per EAWH's reasoning. MarginalCost ( talk) 21:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:NACADEMIC criteria 6 and the addition of sources and information from sources in the article that add biographical and encyclopedic content, including her impact in the area of higher education, supporting Black women in the field of economics. Beccaynr ( talk) 23:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Meets WP:NACADEMIC criteria #6. Pilean ( talk) 07:14, 23 March 2021 (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.