Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claudia Imhoff


 * 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The result was Keep (nomination withdrawn) - non-admin closure. Whpq (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Claudia Imhoff

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article has a bit of a history of IP reverts, minor edit warring, etc so I anticipate this AfD could get "interesting". Yes, there's coverage of the topic, but none appears to meet the basic criteria of WP:BIO. Lots of press release and blog stuff, but the big issue is whether it's reliable and independent. Travellingcari (talk) 06:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Nom withdrawn


 * Keep Far too many Google Books references and titles authored by her to fail notability. See http://books.google.com/books?q=Claudia+Imhoff&btnG=Search+Books (Mind meal (talk) 07:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC))
 * Comment Wow, I missed some of those. Note that the search is also returning books she's mentioned in, not exclusively that she (co)authored. What's the minimum on creative professionals? I'm looking at BIO and she would seem to pass on some of those (in which case, mea culpa and I'll withdraw the nom) but not all. If it is deemed to meet WP:BIO I'll try to work on it so it doesn't read like her professional summary. Travellingcari (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Nom Withdrawn I stubbed it and added a few of her books. I don't know enough about the field to understand my way through the press releases out there to work out what it is she actually *does* so that's for someone else to figure out now that notability has been established. Travellingcari (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The books are published by major publishers, primarily Wiley. Some of them have had multiple editions. Some are in almost 100 US libraries. There are thus undoubtedly reviews also. Not that anyone could possibly have told all this from the spammy nonspecific unreferenced article. Keep and improve. DGG (talk) 08:27, 3 February 2008 (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.