Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jackie Cumming

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. Michig (talk) 07:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Cumming[edit]

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

per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics), no claim to notability. Professor doing what professors do. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 02:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 02:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 02:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Clearly fails SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added a research story of hers that got picked up by every major newspaper in the country and some official docs as well, counts WP:SIGCOV, and if anyone quibbles there's a lot of content at a suitable google search, much of it either crediting her or about her work but written by others. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The expanded article demonstrates notability. Schwede 66 17:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Schwede NealeFamily (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@DerbyCountyinNZ, any thoughts on these new sources? czar ⨹ 23:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I see most of the citations as only relatively trivial mentions (Cummings name is usually mentioned only once) about the same report. Still not convinced that this indicates notability even if it is considered to satisfy WP:N. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep apparently national impact. DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 26 December 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.