Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia Lovell


 * 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Julia Lovell

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails both WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC.  White Whirlwind  咨   22:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  23:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  23:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per the three awards in the article and the following sources about her book The Opium Wars:    These sources seem to be enough to meet WP:NAUTHOR. However the awards are enough to meet WP:PROF IMO, so she seems to pass both notability guidelines mentioned by the nominator.  Everymorning   talk  00:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Those awards are both extremely minor (the former seems to be entirely defunct, and was awarded for less than 10 years, and she didn't even receive it).  White Whirlwind  咨   01:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a young scholar, but the awards attest to notability, especially an award for an academic book she wrote. That book is held in almost 1000 libraries, which is significant for an academic work. Other books are held in around 500 libraries. We need to add a bibliography (she has written at least 3 books). LaMona (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Snow keep plenty of notability, even if we ignored the prizes. User:White_whirlwind, take a look at this search on The Opium War and take another look at WP:BEFORE and WP:AUTHOR Lovell with a slew of reviews in The Guardian,  the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere flies past both.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * E.M.Gregory - stored some of those links on the article talk page so as not to lose them. Thx. LaMona (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - since at least one work was reviewed by the New York Times, this author is probably notable. Bearian (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: White Whirlwind is a respected and accomplished editor, so I took this nomination seriously. I checked out the reviews of the Opium Wars book and added a selection to the article. They are not only in the standard academic journals but also in general literary journals, which convinced me that this relatively young scholar has earned a reputation as a public intellectual. She seems to be accomplished enough to be considered notable by either the academic or the author standard. I would also respectfully disagree that the Leverhulme Award is minor.ch (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep -- A well received history book; two more on Chinese history (not a subject heavily studied in the West; at least 4 major translations, at least one well received. That looks to me enough to be notable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:38, 15 August 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.