Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gloria L. Main


 * 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. Geschichte (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Gloria L. Main

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non notable retired professor. Source search turned up no coverage in independent sources. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 17:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 12:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - Main authored 2 widely reviewed books; she meets WP:AUTHOR. I've added these reviews and added some context to the article. TJMSmith (talk) 13:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - TJM Smith has correctly noted that the subject qualifies WP:AUTHOR, i assure. But i don't know as to what extent will passing WPA help the article's case. On the other hand, she has not been covered significantly by sources and thus, fails WP:SIGCOV which is a problem. Her books are acclaimed and well-known. The fact that she has not received enough coverage is something to be blamed upon others. An author as good as her must be notable without any doubt. But as the things stand, i fear that she might not be accepted as notable by the majority that complies with notability guidelines. Flaws of such rigid regulations are exposed in cases like these. Everything seems to have come down to what is more important to pass - WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV. Pesticide 1110  Lets wrestle! 15:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Much thanks to TJMSmith for their work. I agree with the above, I'd love to see some significant coverage in RS, but the article should probably stay. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 20:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR, and there appears to be enough biographical information available to write about her life and career. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY and WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Clearly meets WP:AUTHOR. Article does need more independent biographical references however. ExRat (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:HEY. pburka (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Aside from the many book reviews, the subject's Google Scholar citations are healthy, with 98, 82, 74, 68, 58 citations for her top five works. I have added two papers to her selected works. The independent coverage does not need to be of the subject, just of her works, as provided here in bounteous amounts. Generally the faculty page will provide some reliable biographical information, though that might not work for someone long retired. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Being given an emeritus/a title indicates that she was more than a mere lecturer. The books are published by major academic presses, which alos indicates notability.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2021 (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.