Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judith M. Gueron

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. JohnCD (talk) 11:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judith M. Gueron[edit]

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

This article fails to address the notability requirements. Being on the Board of Directors of Alcoa does not impart encyclopedic notability. Searching on Google News provides mentions of her appointment but no articles that appear to demonstrate notability for anything else. When there are then they may be a rationale for creating a biography but at the moment any mention of Gueron can be merged into the company article. Ash (talk) 02:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 02:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is probable that someone who is on the BOD of both Alcoa and National Bureau of Economic Research is notable as a economist;. I think she does meet WP:PROF: her principal book, From welfare to work is cited 434 times in G Scholar . She is senior author, it was published by a major specialized publisher, and the book is in 536 worldcat libraries. There are also quite a few discussions of her studies in G News Archive [1] and in Google (see above). The references are discussing her as an expert in the analysis of that important practical program. . DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if someone is willing to make it into an encyclopedic stub otherwise delete. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no article. Miami33139 (talk) 05:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Lack of sources when there are sources available means the article should be fixed, not deleted. --Sainge.spin (talk) 08:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 09:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see nothing here worth retaining. JBsupreme (talk) 07:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extensive Gnews and Gbooks hits verifying stature in field as recognized authority as well as demonstrating coverage meeting GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2010 (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.