Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cori Dauber


 * 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 02:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Cori Dauber

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Articled should be deleted as it clearly fails to meet notability guidelines. See: Notability (academics). Dgf32 (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep An associate professor, at a first-rate university, One major book, another book, half-dozen articles and about a dozen book chapters--this is borderline. Decisive for me is that among the approximate 180 quotations of her work at Google Scholar  an unusually high number seem to actually discuss it specifically. To me, the nature of these references indcates that she is probably an authority inn her field.  DGG (talk) 23:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Writing books and articles is just what academics do. An academic having their work published does not make them notable. Dgf32 (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes, and some of the people discussing are quite prominent, like Andrew Bacevich. She gets 20 gnews hits, and her blog is quoted and discussed on several pages of this OUP book Blogwars, among 38 gbooks hits. Scope for expansion.John Z (talk) 12:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Not one single decisive indication of notability, but bits and pieces here and there form a picture that indicates some notability. One of Dauber’s books is held by 191 libraries worldwide - Cold War analytical structures and the post post-war world: A critique of deterrence theory. That is Dauber’s most widely held book in libraries. A search on Academic Search Complete returned only 3 entries; I would expect several more in ASC for a notable scholar in Dauber’s area. I could not find much evidence of academic impact either. The number of citations indicated by Google Scholar is relatively small.--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment You wrote, "Not one single decisive indication of notability." According to WP:N this indicates a deletion, not a "weak keep".


 * Delete. With all due respect to the previous editors, but I am not too impressed by the evidence that they unearthed. Maximum of 12 citations in GScholar, not really there yet. --Crusio (talk) 09:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * deletei'm somewhat in her field, she's right down the road... this is the first i've heard of her.  the evidence provided above does not rise to the level of notability,  it rises to the level of professionalism, for which she should be congratulated.--Buridan (talk) 13:34, 9 December 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.