Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Jane Woodger

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. A fairly close call, but I do think that there is a meeting of the minds that the subject, while accomplished, does not enjoy the level of notability needed for a stand alone article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Jane Woodger[edit]

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

As far as I have been able to determine, this person fails both WP:ACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR. White Whirlwind 咨 01:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Kethrus |talk to me 16:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Kethrus |talk to me 16:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Kethrus |talk to me 16:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One book with 6 holdings (WorldCat) and no claim to notability beyond what the "average professor" does (prof X has studied Y). Agricola44 (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This is a tricky one. The subject is only an associate professor, and academically looks to be an ordinary academic, but lots of hits in the Deseret News shows that she is a big figure in Utah and/or Mormon academia, and someone that the local newspapers turn to for comment. St Anselm (talk) 08:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep her work is cited by other authors [1], scholars [2]. She is the author of a number of books, which should be added to the page. There is, of course, the usual lds problem, i.e. she gets covered fairly heavily in Deseret, [3] and other lds publications. Her faculty page [4] and this one [5] show some accomplishment, a Utah Historical Society Prize. But the main thing is that her books do get reviewed in Deseret, [6], [7], [8].E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yes, she is cited but not much. Fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR. The WP:GNG problem with just the coverage in Deseret News, is that it is not significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. --Bejnar (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cited on issues like this [9], and, therefore, linked from wikipedia pages like George Albert Smith.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I did not say that the Journal of Mormon History was not a reliable source, nor that Woodger was not a reliable author. We are talking about notability. In this case it was a passing mention in a biographical article in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. --Bejnar (talk) 02:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think the most any of her work as been cited is "4". Clearly does not pass WP:NSCHOLAR, lack of independent coverage of her work also makes them clearly not pass WP:AUTHOR. The coverage is very localized, and this is the part which is the most difficult, but I don't believe it rises to the level where she passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep - per pass of WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BabbaQ: Would you care to share with us the multiple reliable, independent sources in which she has significant coverage? Yes, coverage in the Deseret News, so you need not repeat that. --Bejnar (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note In addition to Deseret, Woodger gets coverage in the Daily Herald (Utah). Mormons read it, but it is totally independent of the church. And, as always needs to be pointed out with Utah Mormon AFDs, although Deseret is indirectly church-affiliated, it also covers Mormon-related topics for the same reason the Boston Globe intensely covers Irish-related topics and the Miami Herald intensely covers Latinos topics: it's what the readership wants.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found two articles that mentioned her at Utah's Daily Herald. One from 2011 was just a list of speaking engagements which listed one of hers (no substance). The other was a review of the book that she co-authored with Susan Easton Black, New book spotlights LDS women of great accomplishment; unfortunately, it did not contain substantive coverage of Mary Jane Woodger. --Bejnar (talk) 00:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not seem to have good enough coverage. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2015 (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.