Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marina Bosi

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. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Bosi[edit]

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

Can't find any sources which would indicate this professor is notable. Sam Walton (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See talk page for some source discussion. Sam Walton (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Our article needs a lot of cleanup. But as past president of the Audio Engineering Society [1] I think she passes WP:PROF#C6, and her highly cited work on digital audio coding also gives her a pass of #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- David Eppstein, per WP:PROF, "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." - Do you have any sources which could be used in this article? Sam Walton (talk) 09:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - You ask that after I included one such source in the comment you replied to? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - "a lack of reliable, independent sources" - The AES isn't independent, especially given that the source is an interview. Sam Walton (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - The kind of source you're looking for is usually only written after an academic dies, and requiring independence to mean "did not ever work with the subject" would probably even rule out most academic obituaries. The AES is independent in the sense that (at the time this source was written and published) the subject had no control over it, and that's good enough for me. But perhaps you would be happier with this profile and interview in Billboard. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Scholars are not judged by WP:GNG, they are judged by WP:ACADEMIC. Her publications are heavily cited at Google Scholar, establishing her as a thought leader in her field. ~~The article needs a lot of work,~~ but the subject meets our criteria for an article. --MelanieN (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have made improvements to the article, reorganized it, and added references. --MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in addition past president of a major professional society (Audio Engineering Society, 14,000+ members, established 1948, many chapters at US universities). --Erp (talk) 03:07, 16 April 2015 (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.