Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Gamson Danks

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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 12:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Gamson Danks

Sharon Gamson Danks (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)

references do not show notability, beyond her having written one book Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — All the sources are self-published, blog, or Amazon, except for the professional award; and being one of 37 awards handed out annually, in a relatively obscure (or at least unique & narrowly focused) field, hardly seems to, in and of itself, demonstrate notability.  — Who R you? Talk 05:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not delete - A greater array of more dependable sources has since been added, including educational journals and the Chicago Tribune. 19:04, 11 June 2014‎ User:Jourdan Sayers User talk:Jourdan Sayers
• Comment Creator has added 2 new references, from http://clearingmagazine.org/, and http://www.innovativelearningconference.org/. this is not a lot, but its enough for me to recognize that the person MIGHT be seen as meeting notability criteria. I will not withdraw my nomination, as I dont think she does meet it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Initial and subsequent versions of article did not show sufficient sources, because article did not conform to Wikipedia's standards, but the revamped version has enough references, including
  WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep based on work by
  C 01:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted

to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Borderline Keep per sources provided, If I'm honest the cite titles should be trimmed down as it takes up a huge amount of the article, Also I've gone with "Borderline Keep" because I myself don't believe she's entirely notable as such but yeah sources have been provided so all's good. –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep,
  WP:HEY. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:11, 19 June 2014 (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.