Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clare Gervasoni

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Gervasoni

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

After some research, she appears, sadly, to fail WP:ACADEMIC at this time. Perhaps others can show otherwise! SarahStierch (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AUTHOR #3 book reviews. Well she has multiple book reviews in The Age and Sydney Morning Herald[1] and others in Australian Journal of Politics and History Australian Book Review Lilith Quadrant Magazine Journal of Australian Studies Australian Journal of Politics & History. -- GreenC 21:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't reviews of books by Gervasoni? They seem to all be by historian Clare Wright, whose biography[2] doesn't match that stated for Gervasoni in the article (Gervasoni is an art historian). So I don't think they're the same person? --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was confused somehow with a different Clare. -- GreenC 06:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 03:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Keep vote seems to be talking about someone else. Competent academic, but not seeing WP:GNG or other criteria being met. No prejudice to recreation in future if sources are found.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete There is one meaningful mention of here in The Age, linked already in the article, but that's probably not enough for our purposes. Avram (talk) 07:21, 20 December 2013 (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.