Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheryl B. Schrader


 * 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 speedy keep. Overwhelming consensus that subject meets WP:PROF, a guideline which "is explicitly listed as an alternative to the General Notability Guideline." (non-admin closure) &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  12:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Cheryl B. Schrader

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

She is not really wp:notable - chancellor of Missouri University of Science and Technology, no independent reporting? not even passing the low level of wp:gng Govindaharihari (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep She is head of college which on its face makes her notable. The article may need work but she is defacto notable with lots of links that you would expect for the head of a major college.https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Cheryl+Schrader  Americasroof (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * head of college which on its face makes her notable - nonsense, you might like it but she has no notability at all, as the lack of reporting about her life reveals. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * When I wrote that, Nsk92 hadn't yet added the IEEE Fellow, but that also makes a clear pass of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:PROF. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC).
 * Speedy Keep, and suggesting that the nominator withdraw this AfD. Apart from WP:PROF mentioned above, the subject passes WP:PROF and WP:BIO on multiple other grounds. There were several other significant awards and honors listed in the articles, all easily verifiable. I added a ref for her having received the Presidential Award for Excellence in Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Mentoring, among other things, as well as an IEEE Fellow. No point in dragging this on. Nsk92 (talk) 00:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: meets WP:Prof due to her standing in the field, her administrative rolls, and her awards. OtterAM (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, WP:PROF met and a head of a University. Snow keep.   Montanabw (talk)  18:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes PROF. She does not need to pass GNG if herstanding in academia satisfies PROF. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep per Montana. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep I agree with Montana as well. - Brianhe (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:David Eppstein, User:Nsk92. Her position, awards are sufficient. Gap9551 (talk) 04:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep She is an IEEE fellow. Notable per WP:NACADEMICS#3. I agree that there is lack of media coverage but this is precisely why WP:PROF exists. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:35, 17 May 2016 (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.