Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorothy Runk Mennen


 * 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   no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Dorothy Runk Mennen

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A theatre teacher who does not seem to meet our notability guidelines for academics. The references consist of a few directory listings, an article in her institution's student newspaper, and one "personal communication". Brian the Editor (talk) 04:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —Brian the Editor (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you considered that the bulk of this scholar's work was completed before the internet came into being? The world did not start in 1991. Is Wikipedia biased toward post-internet notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donalds (talk • contribs) 21:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anything about the internet. If there are offline published sources that demonstrate this subject's notability, then feel free to cite them in the article. Brian the Editor (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

A google search for DRM produced 3680 hits, all pertaining to her work. How many hits define notable? Do you have a criteria or is is capricious? How many of the hits need to be listed in the article so that someone can make a decision? When did wikipedia become policed by a few? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donalds (talk • contribs) 21:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am using the criteria described at Notability and, more specifically, Notability (academics). Brian the Editor (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Using the criteria of Wikipedia: Notability (academics), Mennen is notable in not one, but five categories, numbered by category: 1. Her work in the field of vocal curriculum for actors is pioneering, significanting impacting her scholarly discipline. The organization that she founded, VASTA, calls her 'the mother of us all.' The VASTA website recognizes her as a Lifetime Distinguished member, honoring "individuals who have made outstanding contributions to the field of Voice & Speech." 2. She received an award for leadership from a national organization in her field. (U/RTA) 4. her work has impacted higher education in her field, changing the way that actors are trained vocally. Her students are now teaching in higher education. 5. In three ways: Distinguished Alumna, Professor Emerita, and Purdue Legacy award, singling her out for her work for Purdue University and higher education. Purdue University named a scholarship fund after her. 7. She founded the Voice and Speech Trainers Association, an outside organization that includes but is not limited to higher education. This organization named a grant after her.

This information is included in the article itself.Donalds (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Weak keep It's close but I believe the article makes a case that she "has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline," problem is, there does seem to be a dearth of "independent reliable sources." However, the national award from the unaffiliated University/Resident Theatre Association suggests to me that there may be a notability in her field beyond her own organization. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2011 (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.