Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonnie Costello


 * 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. Nominator withdrawal due to flawed sourcefinding. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Bonnie Costello

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable historian, fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Kirbanzo (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. This badly flawed nomination does not seem to have even considered the correct notability criterion, WP:PROF, which Costello clearly and obviously passes by virtue of her named distinguished professorship (already stated in the article at nomination) and again a second time for her election as a Fellow in the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (easy to find through the sources already present in the article at nomination). In addition (although it will take me some time to collate a more complete list of reviews) JSTOR has at least four reviews for Marianne Moore: Imaginary Possessions, six for Elizabeth Bishop: Questions of Mastery, four for Shifting Ground, and two for Planets on Tables, giving a clear case for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * First, sources for said books? Second, if WP:NAUTHOR is going to be met, the books themselves have to be notable. Kirbanzo (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Search for them on JSTOR as I already said. The books are notable by virtue of having many in-depth published independent reviews. As I already said. And you still aren't even addressing WP:PROF. You might try withdrawing this bad nomination instead of, as it appears, doubling down on it even after its problematic nature has already been clearly demonstrated. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Add said sources to the article. I will withdraw as soon as I get a response to this, but please do so to make sure it meets notability requirements without a doubt. Kirbanzo (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I added many of them before my previous reply, and included sufficient information to find many of them in my original comment here. And you still aren't addressing WP:PROF, which says nothing about the presence of sources in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2018 (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.