Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleanor Janega


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Per WP:HEY (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 10:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Eleanor Janega

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails at WP:BIO without any research achievement so far. She has authored some publications, but she is not included in the list of Highly Cited Researchers and there is nothing to prove WP:PROF. Chiserc (talk) 10:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Chiserc (talk) 10:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. A sensible alternative to deletion appears to be redirection to a stub on her notable book The Once and Future Sex, which has been reviewed in several reliable sources .  I did not quickly find reviews of her other book, but WP:NAUTHOR is somewhat plausible. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I suspect your inability to find reviews of the other one is partly because its title was listed incorrectly: it's "a graphic history", not "a graphic guide". —David Eppstein (talk) 01:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have not yet formulated an opinion on the merits of this specific article, but I found this on WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators as part of a batch of five new deletion nominations by the same nominator, all of women academics. This is far out of proportion to the number of articles, or the number of new articles, on women academics. If this nominator is specifically targeting women for deletion, we have a problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Correction: The batch of women academic nominators had two different nominators. Of the two, the one I have been in contact with on my talk (User:Chiserc) appears to be unrepentant about the discriminatory effect caused by searching women's categories for deletion targets. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I found and added six book reviews to the article. She now has eight reliably published reviews for two books, enough for WP:AUTHOR for me. One of the books is in graphic-novel format, and there's also some incidental coverage that I didn't add about the choice to format it that way. In any case, using that format doesn't detract from notability. Citation counts are not usually very informative for academics in book fields. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. With 2 reviews for the 2nd book (and many for the other), the WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NCREATIVE case is now convincing. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes the relevant wiki-notability guideline by virtue of having multiple books receive multiple reliable reviews apiece. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY and WP:NAUTHOR. pburka (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability demonstrated through multiple sources critically engaging through Janega's work as demonstrated through the book reviews. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2023 (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.