Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jodi Byrd

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) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jodi Byrd (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)

Not Notable. References are minor or simply names on a list. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. She only has the one book it seems, but it has a lot of published reviews (I just added 12 to the references of the article). I think it's enough for WP:AUTHOR. Her presidency of the Association for the Study of American Indian Literatures gives her a claim to WP:PROF#C6, and also saves her from being notable only for the book. And the nomination statement makes no attempt to address the criteria of WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF, and provides no evidence of having done WP:BEFORE, instead giving a generic and superficial review of the references (before I augmented them) that is not appropriate for these kinds of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm satisfied that WP:AUTHOR is met, and I think there's a good case for WP:PROF. XOR'easter (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm not convinced that WP:NPROF is met, but I do believe that WP:NAUTHOR is. Google Scholar shows 676 citations for The Transit of Empire and there's plenty of reviews in academic journals. Papaursa (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Notable and meets WP:NAUTHOR.AD ^Talk 04:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Meets WP:NPROF. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:17, 9 January 2019 (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.