Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Watkins

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 Delete. This is a close call since the "Keep" "votes" make a cogent case for notability despite the lack of sources cited by the "Delete" "voters". However, in light of the whole discussion, and bearing in mind the heightened sourcing concerns surrounding biographies of living people, I believe that a rough consensus to delete has been formed. This consensus is not that she is irredeemable non-notable and will hond only unless (or until) reliable sources about (rather than written or edited by) her are available. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Watkins

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

Delete, subject is lacking non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties. JBsupreme (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BIO. The journal is notable, but the editor is not without non-trivial coverage of her. Novaseminary (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BIO violation. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some citations: This search on the London Review of Books archive [1] turns up 3 articles by Watkins and one review by Christopher Hitchins of a book co-written by her. A Google search also turns up this review of that co-written book by Sheila Rowbotham: [2]. In addition, her 2004 article in New Left Review A Weightless Hegemony shows up on Google Scholar with 13 citations. In sum I see this as indicating retention. AllyD (talk) 18:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a several hits in major news publications. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Are the reviews of her co-authored book and citations to one article enough to consider her widely-cited per WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC? Novaseminary (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean; I had originally been adding the citations above with a "Comment" tag. But then looking at them as a whole, and also taking account of the Feb 2010 Guardian article discussing her recent NLR editorial (published prominently across two pages) - see Ref added to the Watkins article - I assessed them as rendering deletion unreasonable and therefore put a "keep" caption. AllyD (talk) 09:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's close. Obviously, if WP:ACADEMIC #8 applied, it'd be an easy keep. But I don't think it really does in this case with this journal. And the citations are not really about her which would get her in via general notability. I'd go along if several of her articles had dozens of citations indicating academics and scholars acknowledge her (even if the press hasn't covered her). But without citations more directly related to or about her, I still lean somewhere between weak delete and delete. I'd be curious if anybody could link to AfDs of keeps or deletes in simiar cases. That might clarify it one way or the other (or just muddy things!). Novaseminary (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - being editor of New Left Review (in particular for such a long time, since 2003) is notable. Editors are often low profile but high impact as they decide what gets published, and NLR is a notable publication. Editors are sort of like movie directors, even though not directly acting in the film, they direct what gets put into the film. It's a powerful, creative and influential position. If WP doesn't have specific rules for editors it should. Green Cardamom (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources, or meeting WP:AUTHOR. Without significant coverage in reliable sources, it isn't possible to have a reliable article about the subject. Accordingly, at this stage, deletion is warranted. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO. Airplaneman ^talk 19:36, 19 March 2010 (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.