Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosemarie Allen


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Rosemarie Allen

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Seems to have borderline notability. Not sure if she fulfils WP:BASIC Setreis (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Setreis (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:BASIC and WP:Academics, She meets the criteria #5 of WP:Academics. Soreelise (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That is blatantly false. #5 is for people with a professorial title like "distinguished professor" that is higher than full professor. Her job title, associate professor, is lower than full. If the Institute for Racial Equity & Excellence were a major and notable academic society there would be a case for #6, but instead it appears to be a local nonprofit. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. She appears very far from passing any WP:PROF criterion, especially not #C1 . And the article is puffed up with minor accomplishments and bad sources and should be trimmed to what can be found only in better sources. But two of the 21 sources listed in the article as nominated actually look to be in-depth, reliable, and independent: Essence and Chalkbeat. So I think she scrapes out a pass of WP:GNG instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I think this actually passes criterion #4 of WP:Academics as "she has worked with the United States Department of Education and 48 State Departments of Education." Her weekly TV gig might not be enough to meet WP:Entertainer, however along with other things, it could be a plus to have that for notability. Webmaster862 (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, that is not what criterion 4 is about. None of the US Dept. of Ed. or state departments of education are institutions of higher education (they are generally about K-12 education, not higher education at all), and self-sourced claims of having "worked with" these bodies is not the same as having independently-sourced evidence of having "made a significant impact", what the criterion asks for. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. There is absolutely no sign of WP:NPROF whatsoever.  But I take the Essence profile quite seriously as significant independent coverage.  The in-depth Chalkbeat interview (a regional magazine), supported by local coverage, brings me to a weak keep.  The article needs quite a bit of work for style and WP:PROMO issues, but as usual, WP:DINC. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep As and  have argued, WP:PROF is not met, but there's just enough for WP:GNG. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 13:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Not enough for WP:NPROF but enough for WP:Basic as enough coverage shown in the Essence and Chalkbeat refs.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per WP:GNG and WP:BARE. I'm not convinced that she meets any part of PROF, and we rarely keep associate professors. Her Ted Talk and other media visibility bumps her over the line. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep As per all above. Cuoxo (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2021 (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.