Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janet Dudley-Eshbach


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Janet Dudley-Eshbach

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Delete - I don't think that the article is notable enough and not enough reliable references are present. Also the article is being promoted by user accounts such as User:Jdudleyeshbach2 and User:JanetDEshbach which hints at self-promotion. Milesandkilometrestogo (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - The subject is the president of a university so she meets WP:ACADEMIC, I also found enough reliable sources that mention her with a Google search to meet WP:GNG. The fact that it is being edited in a promotional way, possibly by the subject herself, is not a reason to delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, easily meets WP:PROF. Possibly being an autobio is no reason for deletion, nor the fact that the article is not very good: AfD is not for cleanup. Instead of wasting our time with a meritless AfD, it would be more productive to spend that time in improving the article. --Randykitty (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep easy keep on WP:PROF#C6 grounds (president). Remove promotion in article, don't delete. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per above although more sources would be good and a mention of the Facebook apology would make it appear less promotional. Harry the Dog WOOF  12:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Definitely! Here's a link the the article itself. But I think that just the fact that a news outlet would cover the fact that she had racy (racist?) photos on her facebook account attests to her notability. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2013 (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.