Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edith Grace White


 * 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. Speedy Keep. Eminently notable. Significant coverage as full professor and entry in the The Biographical Dictionary of Women in Science and Women in ichthyology (non-admin closure)   scope_creep Talk  20:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Edith Grace White

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG as little/no coverage of her work.

Fails WP:NACADEMIC #4 is arguably failed due to the fact that there is hardly any evidence that her textbooks have been used or have impacted a "substantial number of higher education institutions".

Fails WP:NACADEMIC #1 as Google Scholar and other websites do not show "highly cited" academic work in "peer-reviewed scholarly publications", especially for a subject such as science where an increased number of citations are expected.

Fails the rest of WP:NACADEMIC as not eligible.

Note that I've used the information from the "Specific criteria notes" section to reach these decisions.

.  Hun ter  12:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  20:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  20:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  20:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. WP:NPROF is a bit unlikely to be helpful for someone working in the first half of the 20th century, although one ref does claim that her textbooks were widely-used (for a possible meet of C4).  We should evaluate her as a historical figure, and the two specialized encyclopedia/dictionary entries seem to me like enough for that. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, entries in The Biographical Dictionary of Women in Science and Women in ichthyology are indicative of notability by themselves, and also make the existence of more sourcing highly likely, though it may not be digitized. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above !votes. WP:PROF is mostly geared towards helping evaluate scholars who are alive and active today, not historical figures, and citation counts for historical figures are generally unindicative. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG: there are multiple independent reliable sources that provide sufficient coverage of the subject. WP:NACADEMIC is a red herring to weasel in subjects who don't already have biographical entries in legitimate encyclopedias. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, per above mentioned sources, and a hard WP:TROUT slap to the nominator for this highly misguided nomination. WP:BIO and WP:GNG are obviously satisfied here. Note that now an NYT obit has been added. Instead of piling on to Gender bias on Wikipedia and trying to delete biographies of highly notable female subjects, our efforts would be much better spent adding new such biographies to Wikipedia. Nsk92 (talk) 06:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, JSTOR has quite a few published reviews of the subject's books, e.g. . Nsk92 (talk) 08:12, 20 November 2020 (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.