Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catherine Slessor


 * 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, per various WP:Notability standards met. Subject is influential in her field. (non-admin closure) &#8213; Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖  13:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Catherine Slessor

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

non-notable editor, no coverage and only actual hits on her name are pieces she's written. fails gng. Praxidicae (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination and failure of WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC. MarkH21 (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Revised to Keep on 's post. MarkH21 (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Re-revised back to Delete after realizing that the Architectural Review is a magazine and not an academic journal, so the subject does not qualify under WP:NACADEMIC #8. MarkH21 (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Architectural Review has been published since 1896; Slessor has been its editor (I have just added as a reference 'Catherine Slessor: a trailblazer in male-dominated industries.': "As the editorial torch is passed, we look back at the career of Catherine Slessor and the AR under her leadership." (Tom Wilkinson, The Architectural Review, 2015)). She therefore meets WP:NACADEMIC #8 "The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area." (She may meet other criteria too, but only one is needed.) Note that WP:NACADEMIC states: "This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc. and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline." The article could certainly be expanded, but the subject does meet notability requirements. RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't the Architectural Review a magazine? It's not an academic journal. MarkH21 (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep agree with, and IMO, she meet some criteria for WP:NACADEMIC, So my vote was Keep. Hninthuzar (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per the AJ editorship and article. Pam  D  11:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And per her extensive authorship of books which I'm sure were reviewed in serious newspapers and journals of the time though not easy to find quickly online: I've added a few to the article, with templated ISBNs for sourcing. Pam  D  11:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have full paid access to newspaper archives and I found absolutely nothing significant about her or her works, in fact, the only lengthy pieces I found were for someone else, unless of course she was born in 1901. Praxidicae (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:AUTHOR. I didn't go through all her books, but I added the reviews that I saw to the article. I think its likely that more reviews exist in journals and newspapers. Thsmi002 (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:JOURNALIST. She is an MBE specifically for "services to Architectural Journalism". (p. 80) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LovelyLillith (talk • contribs) 19:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My impression is that being an MBE is not typically regarded as significant enough to merit notability. See Wikipedia talk:Notability (awards and honors). MarkH21 (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My point isn't just that she has an MBE, it's that her work is recognized as so outstanding in her specific field, that it is recognized as such by people/an organization that has nothing to do with her field. Per this, it states "They are now awarded for prominent national or regional roles and to those making distinguished or notable contributions in their own specific areas of activity. The honour of an MBE, in particular, can be given for achievement or service in the community." LovelyLillith (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * But recognition by those outside of her field is not one of the points of WP:JOURNALIST, and the MBE itself is insufficient for #1 of WP:ANYBIO.
 * Regarding the actual criteria of WP:JOURNALIST, I'm not convinced that she's regarded as an important figure in her field by others in her field (#1 in WP:JOURNALIST). She hasn't received any awards for journalism (nor architecture) and the only mentions that anyone can find of her work are
 * 1. an article in the magazine of which she was editor about her leaving the editorship
 * 2. five book reviews (the existence of which do not mean the author is considered important), one in print on "See-through houses" on which I cannot find any other recognition and four on "Eco-Tech" which is self-described as a survey book and which the only digitally-available review calls an "introduction" with "rather limited information on each project."
 * There simply isn't any evidence of independent recognition within her field that anyone has been able to find. MarkH21 (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm a bit confused here as a lot of what's being stated is totally unsubstantiated by independent sources. Virtually nothing that anyone has included is independent (including the piece written by her own colleague.) I would expect for someone so "prominent" in their field, there'd be readily available sources to support such statements. As far as the NACADEMIC claim, I'd suggest revisiting that statement because that's a massive stretch. This is definitely borderline at this point and I'll gladly withdraw but independent sources absolutely need to be added. Praxidicae (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC) striking per 's evaluation. Praxidicae (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I have looked at Architectural Review again. While it's true that it's not an academic journal, it was indexed by Scopus during the time that Slessor was editor. Many notable people have edited it or contributed to it. It does seem to be an influential and respected publication in the field of architecture and urban design. (I note also that some titles which Wikipedia considers magazines, Scopus considers journals, and vice versa, although that is not the case with Architectural Review). I don't know how we find sources, other than book reviews, from within her field that are totally independent, but there is a tribute to her in another architectural magazine/journal, and, in Architectural Review, tributes from such notable people within her fields (architecture/architectural writing) as Norman Foster, Nicholas Grimshaw, Tom Dyckhoff, Sou Fujimoto, Hugh Pearman, and Roger Zogolovitch. I have found reviews of all four of her books named in the article, and I have added those references. If being a respected editor of a notable magazine is not sufficient, she certainly meets WP:NAUTHOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The quantity & praise of book reviews, citations, etc. would serve as independent sources, my qualm was just with the fact that the magazine article was coming from her magazine (i.e. her employer) which is not independent. The new reviews and these tributes would certainly merit notability by WP:NAUTHOR. I can't see the article containing those tributes though, as the link directs to an Australian government login page. — MarkH21 (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." I have access through the National Library of Australia; other editors will have access to Ebsco, Gale and other databases through other subscriptions or institutions. I can add some of the words of tribute, though others will still have to WP:AGF that they are actually in the sources quoted. RebeccaGreen (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh certainly, I was just remarking that I cannot personally verify the content of those sources right now. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Architecture Review is a major general interest magazine. in the field. Scopus does cover these sources, as they are sometimes cited in academic work. But the magazine is important enough that the academic or non academic nature doesn't matter for her notability  DGG ( talk ) 19:08, 6 February 2019 (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.