Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constance Bumgarner Gee

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. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 03:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Constance Bumgarner Gee[edit]

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

Academic mainly notable for ex-spouse, fails WP:PROF EBY (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Widely published scholar in her own right. She has made notable scholarly contributions, some of which are cited in the article (and should be expanded--this is only a start page). Google Scholar also shows that her many academic articles have been widely cited (e.g. "cited by 31," "cited by 17," "cited by 15," etc.). Thus, I believe she meets, "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Furthermore, she has testified in front of the Tennessee legislature. She was also a notable philanthropist in Nashville. For those two reasons, I believe she meets, "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." Her former marriage is peripheral, though relevant in the 'personal life' section, due to her memoir and the public role it inferred. But the page was created because she is a significant scholar and philanthropist.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:BIO. In addition to what's already cited in the article, I found Village Voice, Providence Journal, Huffington Post, GoLocalProv, and O'Shaughnessy's in the first couple pages of ghits. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Subject self-published a memoir about her marriage/divorce from her notable ex-spouse, Gee, and every single one of those cites is about it (Memoir also included her opinions about marijuana and the part it played in her divorce). At best, that's WP:BLPRELATED (or, stretching to the memoir, WP:BLP1E). I could support a CAREFUL MERGE with Gee's article but there is simply not evidence that the subject, separate of her marriage and divorce, meets notability.EBY (talk) 03:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I disagree. She is widely published and cited scholar (see google scholar), regardless of who she was married to. Furthermore, her advocacy work, which influenced a bill, is independent of her personal life.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple reliable references substantially about her, including this one that is in the article. --do ncr am 12:05, 1 November 2014 (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.