Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Assiter

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) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Assiter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable professor. Online results try to sell her books or mention her in passing. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the references I have listed on the article talk page. Article does need cleaning up, but subject does appear to be notable, also meeting criterion #3 of WP:NACADEMIC twice.LadyofShalott 04:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 04:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've added more info about her professional life including her being a visiting professor of sociology at London School of Economics. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 09:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm not sure whether the FRSA is selective enough, but AcSS [1] is definitely enough for WP:PROF#C3, and the citation record on Google scholar also makes a plausible case for #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per citations and extensive publication list. Meets WP:PROF 104.163.144.60 (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2017 (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.