Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mercedes Graf


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Mercedes Graf
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable subject that was likely created by someone with ulterior motivations. Biased article not fit for WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Guye (talk • contribs) 02:31, 17 April 2014‎ (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 17.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 02:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete no indication of "a significant or well-known work" or "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" per WP:AUTHOR. GoldenRing (talk) 09:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. No indication of significant impact on scholarship. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC).
 * Delete. WADR, an average professor. WorldCat shows that none of her books are widely held. Agricola44 (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC).
 * I've changed positions in light of new findings by  DGG. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC).


 * Keep. I understand the deletion rationales, but I think a case can be made for keeping this article.  WP:Notability (academics) says that "some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for their academic work...it is natural that successful ones should be considered notable."  Graf's historical work is recognized by the Organization of American Historians as the "first comprehensive overview" of a certain historical topic .  Moreover, her historical publications have been featured in fairly prestigious periodicals .  She is also listed as an author on a number of psychological publications, a number of which have been modestly cited (see Scholar).  If this article has not been deleted, I see no reason why we ought to remove Graf's; indeed, she appears to have had a more substantial impact.  —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 06:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment -- The article wreaks of autobiography and needs purging of her lectures and the like. However, her work has been reviews in what appear to be significant academic periodicals. Assuming these have not rubbished it, that appears to be evidence of some notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * but not enough evidence to pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC).


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Weak keep as an author. There seems to be nobody else publishing on some of these topics, so she might also be called an expert in the field. Her books of specific individuals have low holdings counts, as do those of all other people on similar individuals (except for Mary Edwards Walker who is famous, and has been the basis for many books. Her general book, Women doctors in war. is in over 700 libraries, according to worldCat., you must have missed this one. Does the count affect your opinion?  DGG ( talk ) 09:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I did indeed miss this – apologies. I think your assessment is correct – this helps nudge her over the bar. Have struck old vote above and added new below. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC).


 * Keep. Her Women doctors in war is held by over 1K institutions, according to WorldCat. Though she seems to have only 1 work that is widely held, the breadth is probably several standard deviations above the average non-mass-market book. Agricola44 (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2014 (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.