Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vernellia Randall


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Vernellia Randall

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Reason Page does not cite any sources to back up most of the "information." see Verifiability "Article" reads like an autobiography and does not abide by the policy on biographies of living persons. see Biographies_of_living_persons Who is this person and why does she deserve a page in wikipedia.org?49311 (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This nomination was incomplete. I have added it to the log for 22 December, and the 7 days should begin today. Consider this a relist, if you like. On the merits, I'm Neutral. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Iffy, leaning towards delete GNews gets nothing, GBooks finds a lot of evidence that she makes herself available for commentary. So far evidence is that she's just another law professor. Mangoe (talk)
 *  As above Delete. GS gives an h index of 10. Probably not quite there yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC).
 * Weak keep. I found and added some news stories about her to the article. I think it may be enough to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, C T J F 8 3  chat 03:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - Plenty by her, but nothing about her. I have examined David Eppstein's sources and in my opinion they may (possibly) provide notability for her work, but not for the woman herself (they're not significant coverage of her sufficient to write a verifiable article). - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Much of the article is about her book Dying While Black, but the WorldCat entry shows this book is held by <50 institutions. The book itself has its own WP page, which perhaps should go to AfD as well, given its lack of notability. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2011 (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.