Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marilyn Price-Mitchell

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 no consensus. v/r - T P 21:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Price-Mitchell

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

Non-notable individual. Article lacks secondary references. Not sure founding National ParentNet Association is grounds for notability. Appears to fail WP:BASIC. Prod was removed by spa with a single edit. reddogsix (talk) 03:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The reliable secondary sources appear to be: MLive, The Crucial Voice of the People, Past and Present, Beyond Smart and The Practice of Teaching. I don't believe this is enough to show notability. MLive is local to Michigan and not much to write a bio with. Beyond Smart and Practice of Teaching are trivial mentions (not "significant coverage"). The coverage in The Crucial Voice of the People is better. If more sources or other notability criteria are found I might change position. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This Google Scholar search shows some citations of her work. The MLive reference is pretty good. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created an account in order to edit this article. I didn’t mean for it to get deleted, but was looking to clean it up and remove the red tag that was at the top of it. I am familiar with her work so I have a little more insight and thought that my knowledge would be useful for the article. Regarding her notability, the references state she is an expert in her field. This is supported by at least 2 sources. As far as MLive, I realize that it seems like a regional publication based on the name, but it has an Alexa rank of 799 in the U.S. This shows that there are either a lot of people in Michigan or that it is getting views from quite a few places. It is run by Booth Newspapers (A.K.A. MLive Media Group). It is not as popular as The New York Times, but I would put it a little bit higher than a local or regional source. I am not sure what else I can do for the article other. I thought that the references I added were the type that Wikipedia wants to show that she is notable. Her work is cited in Google Scholar as well as several books as well. --Anropolos (talk) 05:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. RichardStevens89 (talk) 09:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On the contrary, there are multiple indications of notability, including a regular column in a national magazine (Psychology Today) and at least 5 mentions in Young, Victoria M., The Crucial Voice of the People, Past and Present, 2012, Rowan & Littlefield Education, Lanham, MD. This seems to qualify for WP:PROF criteria #4. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This hardly meets WP:PROF. reddogsix (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2013 (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.