Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Louise Dudley

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. Sandstein 19:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Louise Dudley

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

Does not seem to satisfy WP:PROF (but feel free to tell me otherwise, not too sure with handling that criterion yet) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on recent improvements, I would now suggest Keep as well. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing indicates she passes any of the criteria for academic notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not meeting either WP:PROF or WP:GNG. It is hard to find information about older women scientists. Perhaps more can be found and the article kept. The article was created as a translation of fr:Patricia Louise Dudley as part of Wikipedia:Meetup/UNC/Women in Science 2017. The only two references I can find are:
- McLaughlin, Patsy A.; Sandra Gilchrist (1 June 1993). "Women's contribution to carcinology". In Frank Truesdale (ed.). History of Carcinology. CRC Press. p. 200. ISBN 978-90-5410-137-6.
- Damkaer, David M. (December 2004). "Patricia Louise Dudley (1929 – 2004)" (PDF) (48): 10. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

StarryGrandma (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I assume the Monoculus piece is as good as it gets. She seems to have been a dedicated teacher and taxonomist for all of her career, and inshallah, that's not good enough for an article based on out guidelines. Those really need an overhaul. Do you know how many ****ing Romanian soccer players I have NPP-reviewed as "notable" this week? :( --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep. The article has been expanded with more references. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this article survives then the redirect Pat Dudley needs to become a dab page - it's the form of name used in the page about the endowment in her name. PamD 12:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote added to target of redirect, to achieve same end. PamD 13:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: When there's an endowment in her name, "Who was this Patricia Dudley?" is a question Wikipedia ought to be able to answer. Notable within the small world of Copepodologists, having a detailed obit in their newsletter. (And that obit mentions that "A longer notice on the life and work of Patricia Dudley is planned for the Journal of Crustacean Biology." Anyone got access to that for 2004-5?) PamD 12:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The endowment is a good argument, I think. - There doesn't seem to exist a longer article in the Journal of Crustacean Biology; although they do print the odd obituary, the archives [1] don't show up anything on her. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've been watching this article since it was nominated for AfD; it has improved considerably. She was the Chair of the biology department for decades at a notable university in addition to the endowment honor. It does seem odd (if not disappointing) that neither Barnard College nor Columbia University seem to have recognized or acknowledged Dudley's passing. Perhaps they did and it is not searchable on the web? Based on the time period of her work in the field of Copepods, and the chair position plus endowment, I am leaning towards a keep. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I had my doubts initially about her notability, as only an NSF faculty fellow award was not enough, but I agree completely with PamD and Thsmi002 that her article now evidences her notability. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also had my doubts initially, but improvements over the course of the AfD have satisfied them. XOR'easter (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PamD and Thsmi002 and After improvements .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I totally agree with PamD. Also, Thsmi002, I thought the same thing about not being noticed. Looking at databases, it seems like she has a common name, esp if you search using only her middle initial. So far I haven't turned anything up, but it could be buried in an offline archive. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anything in contemporary newspapers in New York or in Washington state? Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:34, 7 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.