Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Nycum


 * 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The result was   that the nomination was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Gobōnobō  + c 23:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Susan Nycum

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

not even a stub of a biography - just a mention of one thing she wrote 25 years ago Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I started this article today during a training course. The subject was taken from a gender gap list as this was the point of the training - to encourage women to become more involved here.  The nomination was made 65 minutes after the article was created and so provides a good illustration of the way that new users get bitten.  I had to rush home to attend to a leaky roof but have now spent a bit more time expanding the topic further.  I didn't know much about the subject when I started but she appears to have be a fairly prominent pioneer in the field of computer law.  This topic is quite relevant to Wikipedia and so we should allow more time for article development and expansion, as laid out in our editing policy. Andrew Davidson (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article has been expanded considerably since it was nominated. Nycum is a pioneering computer law scholar and was active in the field's early days, writing, for one, the first study to document and define computer crime. Many sources that could be used to further expand the article can be found at Google Scholar, books, and news; the sources demonstrate that Nycum easily passes WP:BIO through substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources.  Gobōnobō  + c 22:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have to agree with the others.  A casual search on Google News turns up countless articles.  Skimming through some of them, I see evidence that she is constantly referred to as an expert, and it should be very easy to create an article on her.  The article itself still relies on many primary sources, but it will fill out eventually.  I would suggest that Eggishorn withdraw this nomination, as it seems this nomination was premature. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Withdraw Nomination for reasons given above. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:10, 8 November 2013 (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.