Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mireille Issa


 * 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 no consensus with WP:NPASR.  So Why  09:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Mireille Issa

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I had this restored after prod deletion because a lot of WP:EFFORT went into it at WP:PNT and I thought it deserved every chance. I have the feeling she doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC but I'm not sure, also the article resembles a resumée and there seems to be a COI Siuenti (씨유엔티) 02:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   04:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   04:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep -- To my mind this is a sufficient body of published work to merit retention. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really sure if I should be trying to get this deleted, but in order to advance the discussion I will point out that there is no policy that says quantity of published work indicates notability. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 00:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It has to be a balancing act between quantity and quality. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Has published very recent books in a low cited field. As a result few cites. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC).
 * Keep as likely a pass of WP:NAUTHOR with multiple published books. Éditions Geuthner appears to be a scholarly publisher. I believe we are hampered by the language difference here and that sources are likely to exist in French. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Just publishing stuff contributes nothing to notability. It's having the stuff recognized by others that confers it. If sources exist in French the search engines should find them. They can't yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC).

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: WorldCat lists 9 works in 17 publications and 61 library holdings, which by itself doesn't scream notable IMO, but I include this for others to assess. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. She seems to be a perfectly competent academic, doing what academics do. She meets neither of our principal standards for inclusion of academics here – she is not a full professor, and her work has been cited only very infrequently. Perhaps it is just WP:TOOSOON? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  19:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete The issue is whether a person who might be notable in one population is therefore notable to all populations covered by Wikipedia.  This person appears notable only to Francophone Medievalists which is far too limited a group, in my opinion, to be "generally notable"  for purposes of Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – XboxGamer 22408 talk 02:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - the only argument to keep the article is that she has published many papers. That is not an indication of notability.  I do not see significant coverage in independent reliable sources.  ~ GB fan 20:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep She has a Worldcat entry, and is therefore notable, by definition. They don't hand them out in lucky bags. Collect, I have never heard such a fallacious argument in all my life. All knowledge by it nature, is specialized, only after time and use does it become knowable by the populace at large. Academics hold specialized knowledge like this as their lifeblood, and is truly ideal for WP, as it advances the fringes of the project and pushes back against WP:BIAS arguments. Keep. scope_creep (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should reread WP policies about personal attacks. I find "Francophone Medievalists" to be a very narrow area at best.  Just as I would find "long jumpers whose best jump was between 14 feet and 14 feet 3 inches".   Or "experts on bauxite crystal formations."  And the number of "people who are in Worldcat" is far greater then "people who are actually notable" alas.  Collect (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete As we have (so far) no notability guidelines for Francophone Medievalists, we should follow GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. Alas, apart from the papers she published, I do not see she passes either of them. Lectonar (talk) 09:18, 19 June 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.