Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Eaton

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. RL0919 (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Eaton (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)

Per WP:NACADEMIC:

1. Significant impact on field demonstrated by independent, reliable sources. No.
2. Highly prestigious award at national or international level. No.
3. Elected member of highly prestigious society. No.
4. Work has significant impact on multiple institutions of higher education. No.
5. Named chair at major institution. No.
6. Highest-level administrative post at major institution. No.
7. Substantial impact outside academia in academic capacity. No.
8. Chief editor of major journal. No.
9. Meets WP:CREATIVE. No.

Eaton is not notable. SITH (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Mccapra (talk) 13:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG. Obituaries in multiple reliable sources: Harvard Gazette, Negotiation Journal, Feminist Economics, Perspectives on Work. – Joe (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I disagree with the nominator's assertion that Eaton does not meet WP:CREATIVE which includes authors. Her books are the subject of multiple reviews. These reviews should be incorporated into the article.Thsmi002 (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mistakenly reviewed books by Susan E. Eaton. The subject of this article, Susan C. Eaton meets WP:PROF based on citations of her publications in academic journal articles (see Google Scholar). The articles mentioned above by Joe count towards meeting GNG. I've incorporated some sources into the article.Thsmi002 (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Actually one of the obits mentioned by Joe isn't an obit -- it's two pages in the scholarly journal "Perspectives on Work" of the Labor and Employment Relations Association about the "Susan Eaton Seminar" held by MIT and Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, intended to gather other scholars to "discuss the major issues and challenges facing those engaged in the different domains in which Susan worked" and to "consider how her work can continue in the areas of work and family, union leadership, the healthcare workforce, and teaching." I think this means MIT, Harvard, and the Labor and Employment Relations Association must have considered her notable? valereee (talk) 09:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:NACADEMIC is unimportant as she was mainly a union activist/official. Andrew D. (talk) 09:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per detailed coverage of her in several independent reliable sources. PamD 10:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: sources meet general notability guideline. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on basis of obits. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:39, 18 February 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.