Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samantha Brennan


 * 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, based both on this discussion and on the deletion review. My reading of consensus is that we are missing reliable sources to confirm notability, but in principle these sources can exist. Therefore, if anybody is interested in working on the article, it can be userfied on request.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Samantha Brennan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of an academic, whose article as written is basically a prosified résumé which makes no real claim that she actually passes WP:ACADEMIC in any substantive way. Further, the article relies almost entirely on primary sources — her profiles on the webpages of institutions and organizations she's directly affiliated with — with two references to an independent source (same publisher both times, but two different pages on that site) in which the only mention of her name either time is as the named author in a single citation within an article that's otherwise not about her. So there's not sufficient referencing here to claim that she's gotten past WP:GNG. I'm willing to withdraw this if the substance and sourcing can actually be beefed up to properly demonstrate her notability as an academic, but in this state it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete although I'd like to save this article per WP:HEYMANN, but what I found is articles by her, suggesting she's well-published, what I looked for (and didn't find) was reliable secondary sources with third parties commenting on Brennan's work, what its impact has been, and so forth. I did a rudimentary pass using online philosophy journals, again didn't find much. Agree with the nominator's description of the current 'references'. I am not sure if WP:ACADEMIC might apply in terms of citations of her articles, but it does not look like she meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Lacks the secondary coverage required to meet GNG. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 01:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relister's comment: This was closed as "delete" but is now relisted following discussion at Deletion review/Log/2014 October 11. Editors should consult that discussion for possibly relevant sources.  Sandstein   11:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 04:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: per WP:NACADEMIC, WP:GNG; also published writings do not seem to reach threshold for notability. Maybe just too soon. Quis separabit? 02:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete The references are weak. #6-7 are encyclopedia articles that cite works of hers, so no more important than a citation in G-Scholar. #1-2,3-5 are sites that say: "this person exists" or "this person visited" - not significant. #8 is a web site than anyone can join. #9 is an article about her views on fitness and dieting. #4 is a link to a Goodreads page: not a reliable resource. I did find one solid resource, a lengthy radio interview: . Probably not enough considering the lack of other sources. LaMona (talk) 19:23, 8 November 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.