Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moyara Ruehsen

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 delete. Sam Walton (talk) 09:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moyara Ruehsen[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 07:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 07:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 07:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Prof with tiny citations in GS. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No indication that she meets WP:PROF. Joe Roe (talk) 10:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per cursory Google New and Google Books searches to start. Article needs expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 04:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Search results pointed out by Hmlarson need to be analyzed Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources found by the searches linked above says anthing about Ruehson - they are either written by her or quote or cite her - so they can't be used to show a pass of WP:GNG, and as explained above there is no pass of WP:PROF. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the sources provided above show that Ruehsen is sometimes quoted on topics related to her area of expertise, but what we're actually looking for is sources about her. None of this is a comment on the quality of Ruehsen's work, which I am sure is excellent. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete and I meant to comment sooner, nothing here for WP:PROF, article contains nothing otherwise convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Regarding what Hmlarson said, the article would need a very thorough TNT to convince me that it meets PROF or GNG. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 07:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've added a number of references that reinforce WP:PROF Criterion #7, including LA Times, Boston Globe, and others. Hmlarson (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It should also be noted that she is often published as "Moyara De Moraes Ruehsen" which has been updated in the article. Hmlarson (talk) 00:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just barrel-scraping. Still WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Delete I don't see this passing WP:PROF with the sources I've seen so far. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Doesn't have to pass WP:PROF, it passes WP:BASIC, she is respected and quoted for her expertise, does not need to rely solely on academic credentials. Interviews that quote or cite her ARE "significant, third-party coverage" WP:N is met. Montanabw^(talk) 07:08, 28 September 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.