Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ingrid Schorr

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 delete. Consensus seems to lean to the direction that the coverage is not enough for GNG. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ingrid Schorr

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Utterly nn. Fails

INHERIT. John from Idegon (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 23:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete there's definitely mentions in books and coverage by local Brandeis University press... Just another example of someone who's interesting and accomplished but doesn't quite meet our basic criteria.
talk) 23:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 23:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete a minor more administator than academic. Nothing about her is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While not notable solely as an administrator, the collection of coverage of that role and the dozens of pubs covering her involvement with the REM folks, inspiring the Rockville tune (coverage spanning over 20 years) and her battle with cancer (Boston Globe) add up to passing
WP:GNG. Toddst1 (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Toddst1 (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the answer to the question "what, specifically, is she notable for?" is a bit scattered, I think there's enough depth of coverage here for
WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. This really looks like a
WP:BLP1E one to me. Nsk92 (talk) 04:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable for stand alone article; music trivia mention as to a REM and their song can be stated in their article. Kierzek (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient sources for
WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC).[reply
]

Delete This is a
WP:BIO1E. The sources by Brandeis Univ. Press are not really independent for the purpose of notability. The reason why the subject is notable is because of the song which is adequately covered in another article. Accordingly, delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:56, 4 September 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.