Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shari Evelyn Kendall

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 21:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shari Evelyn Kendall

Unless all professors get a page at WP, this one has done nothing of note, except for working with "the famous Deborah Tannen". Perhaps Tannen should have an article; I see nothing here meriting this one. paul klenk talk 04:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Additional comment by paul klenk talk: A publication of Kendall's has been added to the article. All professors publish papers and whatnot; this does nothing to establish her notability.
  • Comment. This is a pretty new page, so I'd be inclined to wait little while for better info to be added. That said, I did a publications search and only came up with one article (info added to wiki page), unless someone can verify that it is a particularly important paper I'm inclined to agree with the nominator. Crypticfirefly 04:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If we see some more examples of the "many articles and books" I might reconsider, but at the moment certainly NN.--inksT 05:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not pass the average professor test. Gamaliel 05:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Deborah Tannen does have an article, but she wrote a best-selling book. Shari Kendall has two books in preparation, none published yet (see her CV (.doc)). In the unlikely event this article is kept, move to Shari Kendall, since she doesn't use her middle name professionally. [1] --Metropolitan90 06:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Hasn't published anything notable I'm aware, though I would happily change my vote, if something was shown to the contrary. Side note: imo, bio article names with full (with middle) name are best unless they're very famous, to avoid future mistaken links from people who wikify every name in a list, without checking if it matches. --rob 08:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It might be a little premature for an article, but once two titles on Oxford University Press are released, that reaches notability. The article is sloppy, no question, and needs cleanup. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, two forthcoming titles on Oxford University Press indicate contribution to the sum of human knowledge. Kappa 22:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Page needs some improvment but it won't get it if it is deleted. Also, I agree especially with Kappa. Bryce 00:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn proffesor --JAranda | yeah 00:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep an actual professor, with published work. Trollderella 00:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Social scientist publish monographs, that's part of their job. No indication that hers will be well-received. Pilatus 14:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, college prof with one published book and 2 forthcoming books is not notable in my estimation. Until those books are released and at least one of them is a notable work, I don't see justification for a wiki article.--Isotope23 13:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Pilatus--mere book contract alone is largely meaningless. Some OUP books have print runs well under 1000. Chick Bowen 23:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Isotope23 --redstucco 08:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. All professors are published somewhere. -R. fiend 16:26, 14 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.