Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hope Weiler

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. WP:SNOW keep; consensus is that WP:PROF is met and references have been added to the article. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hope Weiler (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)

This article does not meet wikipedia's notability guideline. This article has hardly have some sources and those sources are primary. So I beleive the article has violated WP:NOTABILITY and WP:PRIMARY SOURCES. Hence I demand the article to be deleted. ABCDE22 (talk) 05:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Subject passes WP:PROF as Tier 1 CRC with over four thousand citations to her work. Bakazaka (talk) 06:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've added a couple of references. Subject appears to have a lot of academic publications and less attention in mainstream media.Tacyarg (talk) 07:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 10:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in addition to above arguments, she is frequently cited as a media expert, and gets something that is more than glancing coverage there.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Bakazaka and others. Adding another reference (TV station calling her a newsmaker) and more information. 00:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC) HouseOfChange (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes WP:PROF as a Tier 1 CRC with a good citation profile (h-index of 35, 9 publications in the triple-digit range). XOR'easter (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Highish GS cites for a very well-cited field passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• Speedy keep. Nomination shows no evidence of understanding or applying WP:PROF and subject passes multiple criteria (#1 and #5 at least). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep For the reasons mentioned above. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2018 (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.