Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathleen de la Peña McCook
- 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The result was speedy keep as the nomination was withdrawn. Star Mississippi 02:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Kathleen de la Peña McCook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article does not pass WP:GNG and contains BLP issues. There is no significant coverage in independent, secondary sources. It relies entirely on primary sources, and very scant ones at that. ~ HAL333 05:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Museums and libraries, Politics, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:NPROF. The distinguished university professorship likely passes WP:NPROF C5, even at a regional university. And I think the Lippincott award is probably a pass of NPROF C2. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- The University of South Florida is a top-level public university (an R1 university), not merely regional. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per above. She also meets WP:AUTHOR, as her published books appear to be quite significant in the field; one of them has gone to several editions, and has been fairly widely reviewed (e.g., in The Library Quarterly, Progressive Librarian, and Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association). No doubt her other books are also reviewed in various places; here and here are reviews of her A Place at the Table, for instance. I'm not sure I see the BLP issues. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy keep through WP:PROF#C5, #C2, and WP:AUTHOR, as above. The Distinguished University Professorship was removed from the article by the nominator before nominating. Per WP:AGF, I have to assume that this was through the nominator's failure to understand the WP:PROF notability criteria (which explicitly allow primary sourcing for this sort of claim) rather than to obscure the subject's notability. Regardless, I think this apparent incompetence (and the failure to address WP:PROF in the nomination) is enough to justify WP:SK3. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. Agree with C2, C5 of WP:NPROF and WP:AUTHOR, any one of which would be plenty. Qflib (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Strong keep and suggestion that the nominator withdraw the nomination. I completely agree that NProf#C2 and C5 as well as AUTHOR have all easily been met. LadyofShalott 00:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- The nominator is correct, sadly, in saying that secondary sourcing is completely missing. This could easily be solved by someone typing in her name in JSTOR to add a bunch of reviews of her (many) books, which is sure to be there. But that she is notable via PROF is clear. User:HAL333, please take User:LadyofShalott's advice and withdraw. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep per above, passes NPROF, particularly as several editors are actively improving the sources. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Withdrawn by nominator per WP:SNOWBALL. ~ HAL333 21:42, 18 September 2024 (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.