Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maureen Sander-Staudt


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  23:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Maureen Sander-Staudt

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non-notable academic. No significant coverage, fails WP:NACADEMIC Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 01:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women,  and Philosophy.  Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 01:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. This Google Scholar search shows some widely-cited publications. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There are three well-cited papers, after that not much. Looks like a WP:Too soon for WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC).
 * I'd hazard a guess that her field is a low-citation one overall, but even taking that into account, I'm not seeing any indications that she stands out, rather than being an academic doing an academic's job. Philosophical Inquiries into Pregnancy has been reviewed, but that was a co-edited anthology. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  02:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - I search and found a few possible sources, including this podcast, but to be honest, she does not appear to pass GNG. I tried to fix the formatting and references, but I don't have a lot with to work. Bearian (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete - Nothing to indicate that GNG has been met. The podcast listed above is an interview with Sander-Staudt, so not completely independent. And while she has some widely-cited work, this does not seem to me enough to satisfy WP:NACADEMIC. WJ94 (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2023 (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.