Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice M. Findlay

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alice M. Findlay[edit]

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

Person fails WP:PROF. There is no evidence of her having had a widespread influence in her field; in fact, I cannot find evidence that she is notable via WP:N in the first place. The bibliography/references looks convincing, but consider, for instance, the link to Lisa Joy Pruitt's book in the "further reading" section: a search in that book for "findlay" reveals this, which is nothing--it only mentions in its bibliography a 10-page article she wrote for the American Baptist Quarterly. Look carefully at this article, and you'll see there is no notability here. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS doesn't indicate any citations. None of the offices listed in the succession boxes are notable. The subject seems to be an ordinary professor. Not a shred of evidence of notability. StAnselm (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. (GregJackP (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - I found a single relevant GS cite and 10 (not a typo) Ghits other than junk or false hits. Less than barely notable. Bearian (talk) 03:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did learn from one of those GHits that the "Alice Findlay Memorial Baptist Library" at Hyderabad Baptist Church was named in her honour in 1999. Of course, this is just a church library, so it's not notable anyway. (WP:BIO used to say "The existence of a memorial... is not a substitute for depth of content in published work," before it was changed, but it's still true.) StAnselm (talk) 05:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per norm.--Pradeep (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does not appear to establish notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2010 (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.