Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rita Reed

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 no consensus. Slight lean to delete, but opinion remains divided as regards notability.  Sandstein  19:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rita Reed

Rita Reed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CREATIVE, and must be sourced to media coverage about her, to gain inclusion. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if she can be sourced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 04:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 04:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC) 18:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per theif the The Progressive and Library Journal sources found and added by Megalibrarygirl are enough to pass GNG. (I don't have access.) The others are not independent. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Edited: 19:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've found sources in databases. Please check out what I've added. Also, there are these links on EBSCO which I don't have full text access: [1], [2] Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jahaza (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She has coverage in multiple RS over time. Also, the O.O McIntyre Professorship is a named professorship at the University of Missouri. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The McIntyre Professorship is not an endowed professorship of the type considered notable by
    WP:PROF (something given as recognition for scholarly accomplishments in excess of the average full professor). Rather, it is an annual local award for teaching excellence [3]. We don't usually consider local teaching awards good enough for notability. I have not yet formulated an opinion about whether Reed might be notable for some other reason, but I don't think this award is an adequate reason. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I checked, and I agree with DavidE here. DGG ( talk ) 19:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sources given are primary or local. Citations minimal. Does not pass GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete perhaps and draft and userfy if needed as unless this can be changed and considered notable, this is currently seeming questionable for the applicable notability. Asking DGG for education analysis. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
May I comment that anybody can userfy. All one needs to do is go into edit source, copy the source into a text processor and paste it into one's sandbox. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I don't think that's the ideal method. A page move is better. Normally that doesn't take an admin either. DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Several awards, but all are relatively unknown/obscure. This person appears to be a fairly average professor. Agricola44 (talk) 08:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep although a weak keep, as per above sources, also sources here and here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep WP:PROF as applied here would expect her to be judged primarily as a photographer, using WP:CREATIVE. I don't see any substnatial criticlawork on her or any work in museums. One book with a few reviews (in about 200 libraries) is a little sparse for WP:AUTHOR. On the otherhand, shje is a full professor at a very high quality professional school, and I trust their judgment more than our own. DGG ( talk ) 19:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given
    recent events at that institution, maybe we should not be so trusting of their judgment on faculty ;-) Agricola44 (talk) 19:58, 21 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rita_Reed&oldid=1076183445"