Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Gavron

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 speedy keep. I'll defer to David E. DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Gavron[edit]

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

WP is NOT A MEMORIAL, and NOTNEWS. She was not yet notable under WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 16:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In-depth coverage specifically about her in The Guardian and The New Statesman, and an entire memoir (with multiple book reviews in major media) argue that she passes WP:GNG (in death if not in life, but I don't see why that's relevant). One could plausibly reorient our article to be about the memoir rather than directly about her (one or the other is clearly notable) but what would be the point? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes the GNG. The article is not written in the manner of an obituary or memorial, and it is sourced to non-obituaries written many years after Gavron's death. These sources argue for her work being influential, and our typical numerical indicators back that up. Adding up the GS citations for The Captive Wife (they're given under several slightly variant headings) yields a total well over 600, and WorldCat has it as held by 648 libraries. It's not a typical pass of WP:PROF#C1, given that the body of her work is comparatively small, but the things people do say about that work indicate "a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". XOR'easter (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as creator) per XOR'easter and David Eppstein. She is notable for her book and her position as a pioneer of a whole field of sociological research and of feminist scholarship more generally; this is attested by a range of reliable, independent, secondary sources given in the article and by the citation metrics cited above; Ann Oakley's comment alone should strongly indicate notability. —Noswall59 (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2018 (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.