Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Adams


 * 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. JodyBtalk 20:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Amanda Adams

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete: non-notable author; only one published work; rest is theses and promos. Quis separabit? 21:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 01:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 01:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 01:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

keep User:Rms125a@hotmail.com seems to have missed the fact htat there are 2 published books, neither of them her thesis (which dealt with petroglyphs on Gabriola Island). Moreover Science (journal) published a profile on her and her career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also it is redlinked to a number of Wikipedia articles, (because 2nd book was a series of biographies of notable archaeologists).E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In sum. What I have found is that Ladies of the Field gets cited, not only on Wikipedia, but also in, you know, real books. That both Ladies and Mermaids were reviewed in Booklist, and Publisher's Weekly, but, beyond that, only reviewed in minor outlets like archaeology blogs. That there is an occassional newspaper mention related to the books, and a few other mentions of her as a budding archaeologist, and that she is now a full-time mother.  The only big deal article was the profile in Science, but Science is a pretty big deal.  That, and the fact that the 2 books are real and are cited does, I think, push her into notability as an author.  Albeit not by a wide margin.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep - two well-reviewed books since her dissertation is enough for tenure nowadays, even in this tough market. Bearian (talk)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources found/ – Davey 2010 Talk 19:30, 19 April 2015 (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.