Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Londa Schiebinger

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

:{{la|Londa Schiebinger}} ([{{fullurl:Londa Schlebinger|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Londa Schiebinger}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Non-notable subject; no third-party sources on Google outside of book publishing/purchase sites. Conflict of interest with article creator, as article comes off as blatant advertising for the author and her works, and all references therein are directly related to the subject. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 21:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. This is a complete mess. The author has a conflict of interest, the article asserts no notability and there is only one source. I'm tempted to put an A7 speedy tag on it. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 22:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and add references. If citations can be provided for even half of the accomplisments claimed, this subject easily passes WP:ACADEMIC.WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep All that is necessary, per WP:PROF, is to show that she is indeed the holder of the named chair, John L. Hinds Professor of History of Science at Stanford University. And that is sourced already. The books can be sourced through WorldCar. Perhaps the book summaries should be written a little more concisely and in a more neutral manner, but that's for editing. COI is not a reason to delete. Need for editing is not a reason to delete. Lack of sources was not even correct and in any case the criterion is sourceable, not whether it's presently sourced. Explaining the view taken in a book is not advertising. DGG (talk) 00:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Speedy, easily satisfies PROF criteria. Named chair, one look at gscholar shows top citations to her work starting at 373 ... continuing in the 100s, enough for any field.John Z (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Named chair, explicitly mentioned in WP:PROF. A rapid check like DGG did would have saved us all the time and effort of this unnecessary AfD. COI, of course, is a reason to edit, not delete. --Crusio (talk) 09:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep: meets WP:PROF criteria, but may fall under its lack-of-sources caveat if no sources can be found. Needs a complete rewrite, regardless. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep for now. I think he subject meets all of Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. The available sources (e.g. [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/307/5707/210?ijkey=pY1ubvaAee%2F6U Book review in Science Magazine], [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1999/jul/19/gender.uk1 discussion of work in The Guardian] and [http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?q=Londa+Schiebinger&btnG=Search&hl=en&um=1 many more]) make it apparent that the individual meets the general notability guideline as well as the specific guideline for people. However, as it stands the article is a POV mess, if it is not cleaned up and sourced then it should at least be pared down to a basic stub. Guest9999 (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. If nominators would follow the instructions before nominating for deletion we wouldn't have to waste our time on reviewing such nominations of obviously notable subjects, as shown by Guest9999's Google News archive search. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Citation impact [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_sauthors=%22Londa+Schiebinger%22 indicates notability]. As pointed out by DGG and Crusio, also meets WP:PROF criterion #5 (named chair or distinguished professor appointment).--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. I can attest that she is a well-known scholar within her field, and others have noted that she clearly passes the technical definition of notability.--ragesoss (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2009 (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.