Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debórah Dwork


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Debórah Dwork

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Page seems to be fully made up of original research, including promotional language and giving undue weight to some aspects. Also lacks references, with the ones given having been written by the subject itself, and unrelated to what the article talks about. Has been discussed at the BLP Noticeboard, where I was advised to nominate it for deletion. VB00 (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. clearly and unmistakably meets WP PROF as holder of a named professorship at a research university. She would  be notable even without it: 3   university Press books:Yale, Evanston, and Chicago & two general interest books from a major publisher will meet the requirements. The article is indeed too much like a press release. I have elsewhere said that articles of borderline notability that are also promotional  should be deleted, but she is not of borderline notability . I have also said that promotional articles should be deleted if not rewritten immediately, so I have just rewritten it. I removed all the claims of "first" and similar discussions, leaving the basic facts. A little more work is needed: proper citations for the books, when they are mentioned in the text, and the addition of book reviews. If there is copyvio text remaining, I will rewrite further.  DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm still concerned with WP:V - as of now, the article cites no sources to prove anything that's been written, except a couple of questionable references in a small paragraph at the end. "An article's assertion that the subject passes this guideline is not sufficient. Every topic on Wikipedia must have sources that comply with Verifiability" - Extract taken from WP:PROF. Would you or other editors be willing to rewrite the whole article and add references to reliable sources? Remember: "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed" - WP:V. If I was to do that, probably nothing of the current article will remain. Lastly, you say that "...she would be notable even without it: (list of publications follows)". From what I understand about the WP:PROF guideline, having published something does not matter, what matters is the impact that the publications have had, proven through independent reliable sources (which, as I said, seem to be missing). Hopefully this helps you understand my concerns. Regards, VB00 (talk) 08:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Along with the clear pass of WP:PROF already demonstrated above, she passes WP:AUTHOR for her heavily reviewed and adapted books. I just added ten book reviews as sources to the article, and that was only for her first two books. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. We don't delete decent articles on notable figures just because they need more references. That's what more references is for. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep but still needs pruning of excessive gloss. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC).
 * Keep. The nomination for deletion is unfounded. Subject is obviously notable. She received fellowships from the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, and the American Council of Learned Societies. Netherzone (talk) 01:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've trimmed and sourced the article. The sources now include 33 reviews of 8 books, several in major newspapers and well past the usual standard for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2017 (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.