Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathaleen Land


 * 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. bd2412 T 05:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Kathaleen Land

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The only claim of notability of the person seems to be that she was interviewed for a movie, and was a prototype of one of the characters of the movie. One of the four references does not mention her; one more mentions her name among hundreds of other names (and the link there is not clickalbe). Is that sufficient for notability? Ymblanter (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 9.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 07:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I am using Twinkle, meaning something got wrong during the execution of the code. I do not transclude AfD's manually.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Looks like a respectable bio-stub. At the very least, this is a case for a merge/redirect to Hidden Figures. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Making my sentiment official. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: decent bio stub on a historical figure. Wikipedia would not be improved by removing this article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: Sources indicate adequate notability.--Ipigott (talk) 08:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep She is a prominent figure in mathematics and the reliable sources like Guardian proves notability of this person. The only thing to be concerned is the article needs to be further expanded. Abishe (talk) 09:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, this is not correct, she is absolutely not a prominent figure in mathematics. I do not see any evidence of her passing WP:PROF or even actually having a PhD.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets GNG to my satisfaction (I don't know why the book Hidden Figures is only given as "Further reading"). WP:PROF is just special pleading by sad academics. Thincat (talk) 10:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete the coverage is notsignificant enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2019 (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.