Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilian Edwards

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. NW (Talk) 04:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lilian Edwards[edit]

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

PROD contested. Fails WP:PROF. Self-proclaimed "keynote speaker" whose only proof is ~~own~~ employer webpage and amateur youtube "interview". Drdisque (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Had you bothered to check, you will see it is a university website, not a personally-produced website. Your suggestion is premature at best, ill-considered at worst. GeorgeLloyd (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected, you still fail to establish any notability for subject -Drdisque (talk) 22:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A selection of her papers. Also, editor of "Law and the Internet", and full professor at Sheffield University.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, speedy close. GNews search demonstrates that subject is regularly cited as subject matter expert by major publications like New Scientist[1] and BBC News[2]. No coherent rationale for deletion, other strong signals of notability as mentioned by others, award cited in article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When a google search is done for the "award" she was given, it results in only results referring to her, indicating the either the award was only given once or it is so irrelevant no other recipient claims to have received it. -Drdisque (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dead wrong. [3] [4]. (Now excuse me while I dissolve in laughter after discovering that a mjor international lawfirm somehow ended up with the mofo.com domain name . . .) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not quite as cut and dried as "strong keep, speedy close", HW. But I think the point to make here is that it isn't the award that makes her notable. In fact, the award is a bit of a red herring, because in itself it would be a weak (though arguable) indicator of notability. Here, the combination of the papers she's authored, the books she's written and edited, and the position she holds, together with the award, are all contributory factors to a keep position.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My "speedy close" proposal was based on her being recognized as, and quoted as, as subject matter expert by significant reliable sources like New Scientist and the BBC, not so much the award. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:PROF per S Marshall and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Anna Lincoln 12:44, 8 November 2009 (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.