Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmeline Hill


 * 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. JForget 01:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Emmeline Hill

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Only one of many authors of a single peer-reviewed article. Subject has not been covered by external media, only the article has, this subject does not meet WP:GNG. Drdisque (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. She has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and not just about this one article, so she meets WP:BIO: Irish Times, Irish Independent, RTE television, ABC radio. Qwfp (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * keep per Qwfp, although some explanation in the article on the other parts of her notability would be in order. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per widespread enough coverage. First Light (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:ACADEMIC, has made a significant impact in her field, has widespread coverage in various sources, etc. WP:SNOWBALL. Maashatra11 (talk) 08:23, 10 June 2010 (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.