Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia graham


 * 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 of the debate was keep. Good work, people. DS 15:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Patricia graham
Delete. Individual fails to meet the guidelines established by Wiki guidelines for academic notability. See WP:PROFTEST. No one has attempted to adhere to the guidelines after a request was made in the article's talk page. Established guidelines are:


 * 1) The person is regarded as an significant expert in their area by independent sources.
 * 2) The person is regarded as an important figure by those in the same field.
 * 3) The person has published a large quantity of academic work (of at least reasonable quality).
 * 4) The person has published a well-known or high quality academic work.
 * 5) The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea.
 * 6) The person is known for their involvement in significant events relating to their academic achievements.
 * 7) The person is known for being the advisor of an especially notable student.
 * 8) The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.

--Strothra 02:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. May I say, yikes?  Nearly 400 unique G-hits under her full name, 247 under just plain Patricia Graham.  She has a profile at Forbes' website, for heaven's sake, she holds a major chair at Harvard, she really was a dean at Radcliffe, she was Harvard's first female dean, and they named a chair after her at Harvard  .  She's not only notable, but about as notable as it gets on campus short of winning a Nobel.  This information, just off Google hits, took me exactly two songs on WJDA to get.  RGTraynor 06:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Why don't you add that info to the article? That would be helpful. Some guy 07:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - the stuff in the article doesn't meet the listed criteria per se but it still seems notable to me. I haven't checked RGTraynor's information or I would do a regular keep, but assuming he's right there's certainly no reason to delete it.Some guy 07:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand --Ton e  09:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per RGTraynor H e nrik 11:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep pwe RGTraynor Computerjoe 's talk 12:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per RGTraynor: meets the test in several particulars. Smerdis of Tlön 14:11, 17 April 2006 (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.