Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Otto


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn. Sungodtemple (talk) 11:41, 18 October 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Elizabeth Otto

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

Almost all sources are faculty listings and interviews, which don't count for GNG. WP:BEFORE does not reveal any new useful sources. Sungodtemple (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sungodtemple (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women,  and History. Skynxnex (talk) 13:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NAUTHOR#3. This is a newly created page, so draftifying was also an option. I found multiple reviews of her books on Google Scholar, including this scholarly review that covers two at once: https://academic.oup.com/jdh/article-abstract/33/1/83/5703602 pburka (talk) 13:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Keep. There are tonnes of RS reviews of her books Haunted Bauhaus and Bauhaus Women, meeting WP:NAUTHOR and WP:PROF. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Noting this was nominated only 16 mins after it was created, technically ok as New pages patrol says "an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more", but it feels too hasty to me. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep due to the number of reviews of her work as mentioned above to warrant a pass of WP:NAUTHOR. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per the pass of WP:AUTHOR demonstrated above. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems a clear pass of WP:AUTHOR. The article has been greatly improved since nomination. I know NPP is a difficult arena to work in, but perhaps placing some kind of a notability or sourcing tag to encourage the creators to continue to improve would have been enough? And NPPers really need to understand how WP:PROF & WP:CREATIVE work in practice, and how to search for book-review sources, before bringing a good-faith creation on an academic here. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that this was a poorly thought out nomination, but is not a new page patroller. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 05:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry,, I was using "NPPer" in the sense of anyone who patrols newly submitted articles, rather than in the sense of someone with the permission to use the NPP suite. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:03, 18 October 2022 (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.