Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenda DoHarris

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. Per consensus and Rhododendrites's statement. (non-admin closure) Ethically^Yours! 17:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda DoHarris

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deletion has been proposed before through PROD, but never through AFD. No indication that this individual meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC. Early political activity may be notable, but is unreferenced. In fact, the only reference provided at all is a single book review. Bueller 007 (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this source considers her among "200 of the most important women writers of English" in the Caribbean and there are a number of substantial reviews of her work like this and less detailed reviews in publications like the Monthly Review (like this). That's without consideration of her earlier political activities for which there is little online coverage. It's probably not the strongest case for notability but I think she gets over the line. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is the list that considers her "amongst the top 200" of any demonstrated significance/importance? Anyone can assert such a thing. Also, even "Top 200 in the world" is a rather low bar in a list of unsubstantiated importance, let alone "Top 200" in a region with such a comparatively low population. (About the same as Greater Tokyo.) Also, merely having a book reviewed in minor publications does not meet notability criteria. See WP:AUTHOR; she very clearly doesn't meet it. Bueller 007 (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've not suggested she meets WP:AUTHOR - I think she meets WP:ANYBIO#2, especially since reliable sources have suggested she has made a significant and recognised contribution to her field. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Enough to satisfy WP:BIO, I think. It helped to also search for "Brenda Chester DoHarris". Here are some sources about her and reviews of her books (only one or two behind a paywall): Afro-Hispanic Review 20(2), Guyana Journal, Guyana Journal again, Kaieteur News Online, Kaieteur News again, and again (an interview this time), book announcement, review at Guyana Caribbean Politics, Guyanese Girls Rock (not a great source, no), Signifyin' Woman (again, not great), Guyana Graphic — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources establish WP:BIO #2. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:48, 2 February 2015 (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.