Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruth Currie McDaniel

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. Consensus is clear. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Currie McDaniel

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

Searches turned up zero in-depth coverage, so they don't meet WP:GNG. None of her academic posts meet WP:ACADEMICS standards, and her citation count is quite low. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article definitely does not have enough sources for reliability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EggRoll97 (talk • contribs)
Comment. There seems to be more under the name "Ruth Douglas Currie" (though still not much) than under this title - which is wrong in any case as her books show her as "Ruth Currie-McDaniel". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deb (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whether sources are present in the article as it stands now is irrelevant for judging notability at AfD; sources count if they exist, even if they don't happen to be included in the current draft. For an academic working (a) in the humanities and (b) in the pre-Internet era (her first book was apparently in 1987), Google Scholar is going to be pretty useless — citation counts there won't indicate much one way or the other. I turned up 8 scholarly reviews of 2 books without trouble, which is enough to satisfy me that she passes WP:CREATIVE: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. XOR'easter (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think 11 reviews of two of her books should be enough for WP:AUTHOR. Thanks to Megalibrarygirl for incorporating the reviews into the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NAUTHOR with substantive reviews of her books, as mentioned at this AfD and already in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies NAUTHOR per coverage of her books in reliable sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NAUTHOR. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep LOL, I added the references found by XOR'easter to the article but forgot to !vote. Passes NAUTHOR. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

STOMP, STOMP, STOMP keep (WP:AUTHOR, many reviews), STOMP, STOMP, STOMP. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per WP:NAUTHOR. gidonb (talk) 21:17, 3 June 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.