Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucy Hartley


 * 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.  A  Train talk 08:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Lucy Hartley

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails academic notability guidelines. Superficially, she passes it as her book is "noted", but little sourcing is offered to verify this.  Dr Strauss   talk   19:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment, Hartley's book, Physiognomy, is held by around 275 libraries and has been reviewed in Victorian Studies, Annals of Science, Journal of the History of Behavioural Sciences, Isis A Journal of the History of Science Society, RES The Review of English Studies, so meets WP:NBOOK for its own wikiarticle, whether this is enough or there are other sources that warrant a standalone for Hartley i will leave it for others ...... Coolabahapple (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep As the writer of a notable book, as points out, she passes CREATIVE. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Her second book just came out last July, and I'm sure will also attract published reviews. Until it does, the case is a bit borderline for WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO1E, and even more so for WP:PROF. But I'm choosing weak keep instead of weak delete because the trajectory is in the right direction. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment, I am not a Wikipedia editor but rather someone who posted an article recently that to my surprise was flagged for deletion. I am familiar with Lucy Hartley's academic work and it contributes greatly to our knowledge of intersections in 19th century science, art, literature, and more broadly.  Over the last few days I have read through a number of AfD discussions on what is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia and have also researched discussions outside of Wikipedia about the deletion process. What an education, to say the least. I don't know Lucy Hartley, although I've often recommended her Physiognomy to others because it is of value in an area I research as an academic. If her work is considered insufficiently notable to deserve an entry on Wikipedia then I am even more disappointed in the arbitrariness of this site than I was when my article was flagged for deletion for spurious reasons.(EditExpress (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC))
 * Comment - This one is on the borderline, notability-wise; perhaps a TOOSOON situation, perhaps a narrow academic pass. Seems to be a full professor at a major university with about 20 years of teaching experience and a couple significant books. Carrite (talk) 11:33, 9 October 2017 (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.