Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hazel Hall (information scientist)


 * 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. A SNOW keep. Consensus is clear that the notability requirements are met. (non-admin closure) User:力 (powera, π,  ν ) 22:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Hazel Hall (information scientist)

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

The academic is not notable. Article seems to be written as a CV, and looks like it is likely written by someone very closely related to Hazel or the subject themselves. ClevelandUpdates (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 20.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 10:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: she is indeed notable under WP:NPROF as a FRSE. -- asilvering (talk) 10:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep due to Fellowship of the Royal Society of Edinburgh.-- Mvqr  (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Scotland. TJMSmith (talk) 11:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mvqr and asilvering. StAnselm (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable; her FRSE satisfies WP:NACADEMIC #3, and her extra-academic contributions possibly also #7. (As an aside, I can't help wondering about the motivations behind this nom?) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination fails to explain why 's rationale for removing the WP:PROD was in error ; both WP:PROF and WP:PROF are satisfied. Being "written as a CV" is grounds for editing and cleanup, not deletion, as long as there's an underlying case for notability (and this article is far from the worst that I've seen in that regard). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, and a gentle reminder to the nominator that PROD is only for non-controversial deletions. Any editor familiar with our notability guidelines ought to have realized nominating a page like this would be controversial. pburka (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep for the same reasons I already explained on my unprod: FRSE is a pass of WP:PROF, and she also passes #C1. WP:DINC. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have to Me Too on this misguided Afd nomination, as exposed above. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC).
 * Keep: FRSE etc. I'm not sure what the nominator expects to see in an article on an academic, if they think this is too like a CV. It has reliable independent sourcing for every statement. The creating editor worked briefly on a handful of, mainly Scottish, subjects, and the article has been edited by a wide range of editors over the years, giving no particular indication of COI. Can we call this WP:SNOW to save everyone's time now? (I see this is the nominator's 48th edit: perhaps there should be an experience criterion before AfD nominations can be made?) Pam  D  08:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - As outlined above I don't think there are valid grounds for deletion. Subject clearly seems to meet notability requirements. Dunarc (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, Per above,she satisfies WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. Alex-h (talk) 15:31, 23 April 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.