Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Rosalie Milio, Ph.D.

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. There appears to be agreement on notability following discussion. Issue of renaming/moving not addressed in this closing. Shirahadasha (talk) 06:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nancy Rosalie Milio, Ph.D.

Nancy Rosalie Milio, Ph.D. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable per WP:BIO. Has done nothing remarkable. Gary King (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Fails WP:BIO. Nothing in there to assert notability. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 02:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable scholar. See Google Scholar and 9226 Kercheval; the storefront that did not burn and Nutrition policy for food-rich countries : a strategic analysis. --Eastmain (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - most profs write papers and even books. Doesn't seem notable. Is there any evidence that her works were notable? Sbowers3 (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete definitely non notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC).
• Keep and move to correct title (Nancy Milio). Regarded as a pioneer and leader in her field, satisfying at least criteria 1,2,4 and 5 of WP:PROF. [1] [2] [3] [4] Phil Bridger (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • If she is "regarded as a pioneer and leader in her field" then would you please add references to the article to verify that fact? Right now there aren't any references to verify anything. I looked through your links. The oxfordjournals cite looks good but I did not easily find millio's name in any of the google book cites. E.g. in your first cite, Milio is not an editor, nor a contributor. Can you identify just where and how she is connected to those books? More important would be to do that in the article than on this AFD page. Sbowers3 (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Reply. Look at those links again. They are not to books where she is editor or contributor - they are books which write about her as the originator of ideas which have been taken up by the World Health Organisation. I don't know how you found it hard to find her name - I linked directly to relevant pages and Google helpfully highlights her name in yellow for you. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Keep. I removed a sentence stolen from this source, but with or without it I see no claim of notability in the present article. But her work is reasonably well cited on Google scholar, and this review seems to satisfy the primary requirement of WP:BIO that there be secondary sources about the subject. The article should be expanded to include this and similar information about her. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - significant mentions in multiple reliable independent sources demonstrate notability within field. This one [5] describes one of her books as "seminal" and seems to confirm that she is important within her field. Wikidemo (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• keep I think there is enough evidence about her public role for notability.DGG (talk) 06:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and move per Phil Bridger et al. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2008 (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.