Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Beck

: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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

=[[:Patricia Beck]]=

:{{la|Patricia Beck}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Patricia_Beck Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Patricia Beck}})

Article does not provide with any reference to notability - either towards the subject (author) or the works (novels/books). TopCipher (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep Per Rosie.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete (provisional). I cannot see where notability resides. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC).
  • Keep It seems impossible to fathom that Smith College would include her papers in their collections if they did not deem them to be valuable. Thanks for adding the referencing to Smith and the University of Virginia, Rosiestep. We don't determine notability, sources do. If one of the leading women's colleges in the nation believes that her papers are significant, for their insight, why would we question that? SusunW (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep Thanks to {{u|Rosiestep}} for expanding the article and adding references. In its current form, the article shows that this person is notable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep I support SusanW's logic re: the inclusion of her papers in an important archive. Theredproject (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per SusunW. Pburka (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. The page has been expanded with enough sourcing to meet WP:BIO. Yoninah (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.