Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marlese Durr

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. Closing a keep in light of the additional sources and the comments on NPROF by others. Thanks for the assistance getting this sorted! (non-admin closure) Mdann52 (talk) 05:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marlese Durr

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. Limited coverage in reliable sources, other than the college's own publications. Creator has self-moved from Draft space, so would support draftifying (if that is a word), to allow creator to continue work. Mdann52 (talk) 05:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mdann52 (talk) 05:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Social science, Michigan, New York, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails wP:Prof. Small cites in GS in a high cited field. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Citation counts are low but that may be because of the field, and she still does have two triple-digit counts, making a weak case for WP:PROF#C1. Two edited volumes with three published reviews each make a weak case for WP:AUTHOR (weak because edited rather than authored). President of two bluelinked academic societies could be a double pass of PROF#C6. A bluelinked national-level award (and another major award from another society but not bluelinked) could be a pass of PROF#C2. And if the SWS award is not counted towards notability directly, the SWS web page congratulating her and containing in-depth coverage of her career is therefore secondary (because it is only primary and non-independent if it is about the award) and counts towards GNG, as does the JBHE story, giving her a case for WP:GNG. Each individual claim to notability here is arguable, but there are enough varied ones that I think they add up to a keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per David Eppstein above, plus, this subject passes WP:NPROF#5. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think being awarded the Jessie Bernard Award is enough for this article to stay. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 15:10, 31 May 2024 (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.