Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy E. Dunlap

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. WP:SK1, nominator has withdrawn, all outstanding !votes are Keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy E. Dunlap[edit]

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

BLP lacking external references Rathfelder (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dean of the University of Virginia School of Medicine. --RAN (talk) 06:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sorely needed an update (she ain't dean anymore), but I did some work on it, she appears to be notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question @Rathfelder: you've nominated a series of articles with this identical rationale; could you please clarify what you mean by "external references" and why you think lacking them is grounds for deletion? – Joe (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the rules for living persons require some references which are not connected to the person themselves. WP:BLPPRIMARY for example. I'm not suggesting that this person is not notable, and indeed I have no reason to think any of the statements made about them are contested. But the rules about BLPs are there for very good reasons and they should be applied to respectable doctors and academics as much as to anyone else. A surprising number of the articles about physicians are extremely poor. I am only nominating the worst ones. Rathfelder (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be conflating primary sources with independent sources, which seems to be a common misunderstanding. Primary sources—things like public records and documents—are what WP:BLPPRIMARY covers. But as far as I'm aware there's no guideline that says BLPs must contain sources that are not connected to the subject (independent sources). The independence of sources is usually discussed with regard to notability, but they only have to exist, not be cited in the article. Just applying our common sense, there's no reason to think that a university website is an unreliable source for the details of an academic's career, simply because it is not an independent source. Therefore its perfectly acceptable (and routine) for short academic biographies to be sourced exclusively to institutional websites. As long as there are independent sources out there that could be used to expand the article in future (which is what WP:PROF helps us judge), I don't think it's a valid argument for deletion. – Joe (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having held a position of Dean isn't a slam-dunk under WP:PROF#C6, but it does count in that direction, I'd say. I did a little cleanup on the references (fixing linkrot, etc.). XOR'easter (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite happy to withdraw now the article has proper references. Rathfelder (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. just to clarify, I think our common practice is that Dean in the sense of a subordinate officer is not intrinsically notable, Dean as in head of a medical or law school usually is. Such schools are usually at least in the US essentially autonomous. One must look at the function, not at what happens to be the title of the position. DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 7 November 2017 (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.