Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Whiting (architect)


 * 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The result was nomination withdrawn. Canley (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Whiting (architect)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Non notable academic. No independent sources found on Google. Paste (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC) Paste (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems to be rather more notable than I realised, so a Keep then! Paste (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Whiting is one of the most notable young academics and practitioners in architecture. Her acumen is highly regarded by architects, critics and academics. The fact that the New York Times solicits a contribution from her (source listed on references) on one of the highest profile architecture competitions in the World (Les Halles of Paris) indicates that they highly value her opinion. Just because Google/Google Scholar doesn't return substantial number of results doesn't mean that the person isn't notable. Google Scholar is still a beta project that's trying to incorporate library indexes for academic journals and is far from its goal. If you are not convinced I can expand her bibliography to include more works. Bgnuf (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  15:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  15:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keeep Obviously, she is notable as an academic; quite so in her field, judging by how her peers view her works. It's when things like this show up for AfD that it's obvious the system needs some help.  Cel  Talk to me  15:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you implying that I am in some way putting up a frivolous AfD or that I don't know what I am doing? Paste (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I always assume good faith on the part of people submitting articles for AfD.  My problem is that if no one came around and !voted keep, the article would have been deleted, despite overwhelming evidence for her notability.  It illustrates a glaring problem to me.  It's nothing against you, personally.  Cel  Talk to me  16:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Even I've heard of Professor Whiting! Is there a more notable female in her field, alive or dead? I think not. Annamonckton (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Julia Morgan may be more famous as an architect, but if you define "her field" to be architectural scholarship... —David Eppstein (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Everyone is feeling very smug this afternoon! This lady is 'so famous' she is invisible on Google. Paste (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'd like to refer you to the large stack of sources from Google Scholar that I posted up in my !vote. She's clearly notable.  Also, please assume good faith and adhere to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.  Cel  Talk to me  17:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - notable scholar, multiple written works in peer-reviewed journals, well-known and respected in her field. Article does need some cleanup :) Shell babelfish 20:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep -- She's all over JSTOR with articles such as "Spot Check: A Conversation between Rem Koolhaas and Sarah Whiting" -- about 15 articles where she plays a major part. Google Scholar is atrocious when it comes to covering the arts and humanities.  This is the type of information that WP:PROF reminds us to keep in mind. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty of Google books references, too. Klausness (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I think that the sources are weak, and there is no real demonstration of notability in the text, but the Times article (about not by) is compelling. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2008 (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.