Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie Kanes Weisman


 * 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. Nominator had several AFDs in a row which seem to be very contested. Geschichte (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Leslie Kanes Weisman

 * – ( View AfD View log )

While the article means well and she may have been instrumental in starting certain groups and institutions, Kanes-Weisman does not meet WP:N, WP:GNG, or WP:SIGCOV. Dr42 (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Snow keep A cursory search shows she has a book and plenty of reviews to meet NAUTHOR, some of which I’ve begun adding to the entry. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep Doing a WP:BEFORE search reveals a number of hits like a full length feature in the Suffolk Times, a critique of one of her books in the Journal of American History,  a review of her book by the American Psychological Association. There are other reviews and critiques as well. And a number of profiles with universities and feminist organizations. The smaller hits may only give her a nod or acknowledgement but put it with the media articles and bigger reviews, critiques and journal entries written about her work as an author and activist and it does pass WP:N requirements. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep - I'm not understanding why this was nominated for deletion. She is clearly a notable architect, writer, educator, passing WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR, and also clearly passes WP:NPROF due to the fact that she's a full professor & co-founder of several academic programs, and held a named, endowed position, George A. Miller Endowment professorship at U of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. A 5-minute search on Google shows these two Awards: Public Servant of the Year, NFWFWF Founders Award  and several reviews of her books:  “Discrimination by Design” , , , , and reviews of a different book, “The Sex of Architecture” . Just because an article is short or a stub is not a valid rationalle for deletion. There is a wealth of SIGCOV in RS's on her that supports her notability. The nomination was done without doing a proper WP:BEFORE search. Netherzone (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. She authored a widely reviewed book and edited another reviewed volume. I've added multiple scholarly reviews. She helped found notable academic programs (i.e. Women's School of Planning and Architecture) and has an entry on Encyclopedia.com that can be used to help expand this article. I recommend withdrawing this nomination and performing a more through WP:BEFORE in the future. TJMSmith (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY, following the addition of many new sources. Possibly (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Its snowing in here... --Theredproject (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. All this snow, just in time for the holidays.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 20:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. The WP:AUTHOR case is actually still a little weak despite the many reviews because there's only one authored book (and one co-edited volume) but I think there's enough coverage of her to avoid WP:BIO1E for the book and to make a solid case for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2020 (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.