Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Rising


 * 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The result was   keep, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Linda Rising

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Weak delete. Does not appear to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC on the face of the article, but quite a few references to her or her works can be found by digging through this search.  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 19:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't meet the notability criteria for wikipedia no matter how "notable" she may be in her own field. andy (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Keep - changing !vote - notability established. andy (talk) 09:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Internationally known author and lecturer in the field of patterns in application to software development and change processes. Meets also AUTHOR nr. 1. (The person is regarded as an important figure) - the proof being for example the invitations as keynote speaker. Remark: sufficient notability in a relevant field (like design patterns etc.) should normally indeed suffice for Wikipedia relevance as well. --Chris Howard (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep author who has published books in the academic press. The article should explain however the significance of her work.  TFD (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Patterns are a notable approach in software development and she seems to be a leading advocate and expert. I think the notability of highly technical experts should not depend on New York Times-like sources. She has been reviewed on the websites of Association for Computing Machinery and IEEE and that should be enough to establish notability here.Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 04:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep 3 books published by Cambridge University Press =  recognition as an authority in her subject. (2 additional ones at A-W help also). The article, however, is overly promotional, including such resumé-padding techniques as listing her doctoral thesis as a book, including a number of minor non-peer-reviewed publications among her articles, and including a number of miscellaneous lectures. I have removed them.    DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn by nominator — Opened for community discussion; discussion has now satisfied my uncertainty about the article. Thanks to the community. Best regards,  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 17:42, 2 February 2011 (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.