Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edith Fisch

: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 JForget 23:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

=[[Edith Fisch]]=

:{{la|Edith Fisch}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edith Fisch}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{Find sources|Edith Fisch}})

I first created this article when I began editing, but now suspect that it does not meet notability standards. Besides for [http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/fisch-edith this] full profile, there does not seem to be substantial coverage. If anything, [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B04E1DE163AF935A3575BC0A9609C8B63 this] paid death notice and [http://books.google.com/books?id=9Y_vDwxyLQwC&pg=PA226&dq=%22Edith+Fisch%22&hl=en&ei=T6rjS5bCL8L6lwfrx7mtAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Edith%20Fisch%22&f=false this] description, is indicative of non-notability. PinkBull 05:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

:*This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep Google Books has a number of texts that cite Edith Fisch: [http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=%22edith%20fisch%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=bks:1&source=og&sa=N&tab=wp&fp=908f344da1ea5ce4]. Deleting the article might be a hasty thing to do. Joal Beal (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. I just added more sourcing. It's a little light (I don't think a paid death notice should be considered as evidence of notability) but even without that one there's more than one independent source, enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

: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.