Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marjorie Oelerich


 * 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 02:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Marjorie Oelerich

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable proffessor. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unless reliable sources turn up. I can tell from some searching that she wrote some books or other publications about early childhood education, published through "Children's House" of Mankato State University, and that she's emeritus from Mankato, but beyond that this fails verifiability. In particular I didn't find anything about her role in founding Children's House, which is the only thing in this short article that resembles a claim of notability. And for that matter, for me to believe that it's significant, I'd also like to see sources for the notability of Children's House itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Arguably meets WP:BIO, but probably not WP:PROF. Her books seem to be classified as being for a “juvenile audience”. Having said that, at least 10 of those books are currently in more than 300 libraries (at least 6 in more than 400 libraries) worldwide according to WorldCat. See also these Google Books entries.--Eric Yurken (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have just made several improvements to the article – wikified, added refs, highlighted claims for notability etc. It is still a stub.--Eric Yurken (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not so sure that these library holdings indicate notability. We often use these figures when we talk about academic books and then holdings in 300-400 (probably mostly academic) libraries is quite good. However, we are here talking about children's science books, which in case of notability you would expect to be present in many neighbourhood public libraries, of which their must be tens of thousands in the US alone. I'm not sure therefore that 300-400 passes the bar in this case. For non-academic books we often go by book reviews in major publications. Perhaps someoe can find something like that? --Crusio (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Eric Yurken - Power.corrupts (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete this has to be judged as author, not as WP:PROF. Her works are children's picture books, all in a single series Dinosaur Discovery, all about 30 pp. long.. 300 lirarrry holdings is not very much in this sort of material--looking for other children's books on the same dinosaur as her most widely held book, I see many of them have up to three times that figure. Even in books on that narrow a subject, and audience, she come out 13th. . DGG (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How exactly is the number of pages in a book relevant for the author's notability? Children's books are by definition shorter than regular novels. Also, please be more specific. 13th in what? - Mgm|(talk) 09:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per DGG. --Crusio (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per DGG. Stifle (talk) 09:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. As noted by Mgm, the type of book that she is best known for typically does not have that many pages. The fact that she has so many widely held books indicates notability, in my opinion. Her work is also cited by independent parties. All in all, I’d say this is a keeper.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * delete per DGG. Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2009 (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.