Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Metcalf

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 of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 ^talk July 8, 2005 04:50 (UTC)

[edit] Barbara Metcalf

No evidence of notability. --W(t) 30 June 2005 03:53 (UTC)

Very weak keep at this moment. What is the notability bar for a Professor and historian?[1] [2] Hiding 30 June 2005 13:35 (UTC)

• That would be WP:PROF (professor test). I'd say she falls short, so delete. Radiant_>|< June 30, 2005 14:13 (UTC)
  • Blimey, they're quite tight. If them's the rules though, delete. Hiding 30 June 2005 15:35 (UTC)
• Speedy delete under criterion #1. If not, delete for being Random J. Professor. She might have produced enough of an effect on the world to deserve a bio, but there's no way to tell from this (or Google). Geogre 30 June 2005 17:24 (UTC)
• Speedy delete if possible as per Geogre, otherwise delete as non-notable. — Bcat (talk | email) 30 June 2005 19:17 (UTC)
• Keep. I've just rewritten the article - please re-read it. She is well above the notability bar for a college professor and historian. She currently holds an endowed chair at a major university (U. of Michigan) and was used to be a dean at another (U. Cal. Davis). Her book 'A Concise History of India' is well known and widely read in the field. Sheldrake 30 June 2005 20:28 (UTC)
• Keep based on the rewrite. Good job. By the way, the test for professors at WP:BIO says "If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor, they can and should be included." At most American universities (if not all), far fewer than half of the professors occupy an endowed chair. By definition, virtually any professor in an endowed chair "is more well known and more published than an average college professor" because the professors who are less well known and less published than an average professor are not typically going to get the plum appointment. That doesn't mean that the author of the article shouldn't do his or her homework, however, just that it is likely that if you look into it, a professor with a named professorship does meet the test for inclusion. DS1953 30 June 2005 20:54 (UTC)
• Abstain I'm in over my head on this one. Hiding 30 June 2005 20:57 (UTC)
• Keep as re-written. I've heard the name before, but I can't recall where. In any case, seems to be an above-average professor. --Carnildo 30 June 2005 21:04 (UTC)
• Weak keep might be notable enough but could do with some expansion. --Etacar11 30 June 2005 23:03 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Well done Sheldrake. It is now a good stub on a notable Indian historian. Capitalistroadster 1 July 2005 01:08 (UTC)
• Weak keep as rewritten. (I'm still not quite sure about the notability of this one.) — Bcat (talk | email) 1 July 2005 02:46 (UTC)
• Keep as re-written, as per DS1953. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 03:08 (UTC)
• Keep. Oddly, I had heard of her beforehand (and no, I'm not a historian). James F. (talk) 1 July 2005 10:22 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable enough. Gamaliel 7 July 2005 01:37 (UTC)
• Keep Even if notability were an agreed-upon standard for deletion, she would qualify. Dystopos 8 July 2005 01:17 (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.