Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gloria Goodwin Raheja


 * 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   Speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 21:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Gloria Goodwin Raheja

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. She is an academic that is doing her job Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 10:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 14:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment According to gscholar, both books mentioned in the article have received about 500 cites each (532 and 466, respectively), which is quite something. Notability would need to be established via independent sources, though. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 14:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, she's widely published, widely cited and was a Chair at University of Minnesota. I've added more sources that should help prove notability. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. The citations are unquestionably enough to meet WP:PROF, and theb ooks important enough to meet WP:AUTHOR. Thisshould not have been nominated for deletion.  DGG ( talk ) 20:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * the sources provided through the effort of established the subject notability. Thus, withdraw my nomination to Keep the article. Many thanks to Megalibrarygirl. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 21:43, 31 October 2015 (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.