Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Florey


 * 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. Appears to pass our notability guidelines (esp author/academic). Feel free to improve. Thanks all who participated in this discussion. Missvain (talk) 06:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Margaret Florey

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

DePRODed. No further signifucant sources added. Concern was: Fails to meet criteria at WP:NACADEMIC Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 23:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 23:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 23:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 23:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete. Citation record not strong enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF (see e.g. Articles for deletion/Silvina Montrul, another linguist who coincidentally happens to be up for AfD at the same time, for an example of what I'd consider to be strong enough). And there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as the author of a major books. Endangered languages of Austronesia was published by Oxford University Press, and is in 375 libraries . I consider that publication by itself a probably enough to establish her as an authority in her field.  DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 20:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Ethically  Yours! 07:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Weak keep Kind of a borderline case. Current article seems promotional, CV-ish. But this person does do interesting work in an interesting part of the world. Possible source is an article about a linguistic study here and related articles here about the 'yeah-no' phrase, also here. A positive book review here, and an interview with her here and a mention here, and a mention here. Overall, I lean towards keep although I would like to see several in-depth sources addressing Florey's impact, and I urge whoever wrote this article to trim out all the unsourced or improperly sourced gunk.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep perhaps weakly, but I feel that two signficant reviews, , in the International Journal of the Sociology of Language and Anthropological Lingustics, are notable, and if you want a policy argument, can be viewed as meeting the clause of WP:AUTHOR 3 which requires "of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.". --j⚛e deckertalk 05:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 02:52, 6 February 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.