Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra kaji-o'grady


 * 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. Michig (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Sandra kaji-o'grady

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and the professor test. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 07:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep in my opinion the text content demonstrates that the subject meets WP:GNG and with the professor test. Sources are reliable yet have been incorrectly entered (eg news articles entered as websites without referring to their print origins) and so a simply tidying of references will address both concerns Alysiab (talk) 12:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, article contents does not demonstrates the notability of a subject on Wikipedia. Articles are included in the encyclopedia on the basis of notability not on the basis of the article content. While you familiarize with basics policy before leaving a vote or comments at AfD, you may consider to read WP:GNG, WP:ACADEMIC and WP:RS. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 13:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin: also left the above keep argument word for-word at Articles_for_deletion/Pia_Ednie-Brown.  Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 13:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep If being "Professor and Head of School" does not currently qualify under the intersection of WP:NACADEMIC and WP:NACADEMIC, it should so that time could be saved. In any event, Kaji-O'Grady satisfies WP:BASIC having received significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources as per the references already in the article and others such as this one. . 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Majority of the sources sources are unreliable, primary and not a third-party independent sources. By "significant coverage in reliable sources, we mean that the reliable sources must discuss the subject in details and directly. I can't see the multiple significant coverages in reliable source that establish the subject notability. In addition, academician that fails WP:ACADEMIC rarely meet WP:GNG. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 06:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - meets WP:NACADEMIC. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 22:38, 15 March 2015 (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.