Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viviane Namaste


 * 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. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 11:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Viviane Namaste

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of an academic, parked almost entirely on primary sources that cannot confer notability under WP:GNG — almost every single source here is her own PR profile on the website of a directly-affiliated organization, or a promotional page for one of her books on Amazon or the website of its publisher. The only source here that's even marginally acceptable referencing for a Wikipedia article is #1, but as an interview with the subject it's not strong enough to carry GNG by itself as an article's only valid source. While there's enough of a claim of notability here that a properly sourced article about her would be keepable, no claim of notability ever confers an automatic inclusion freebie on an article that's resting on primary sources rather than reliable, independent coverage in media. Delete unless the sourcing can be massively overhauled, no prejudice against the future recreation of a properly sourced version. Bearcat (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. And improve. This is a new article by an inexperienced editor. It should not be deleted due to inexperience. Deletion criterion 7 is "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed." Not delete because of no reliable sources after two days. She has written a much-discussed book and her work is well-known in her field. I've added secondary sources to Further reading.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Her work is reviewed in respected journals. She seems to be highly cited. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I am finding many, many secondary sources. She holds a chair at Simone de Beauvoir Institute of Concordia University, she has testified before the Supreme court of Canada , she has been interviewed in depth , ,  and cited as an expert in the Globe and Mail, on a panel at the University of Chigao  and many, many more. SusunW (talk) 01:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Her book has been cited 500+ times according to Google Scholar, so she is probably borderline as WP:AUTHOR/WP:PROF. I'll ping User:Randykitty for a second opinion here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: Significant accomplishments and sourcing clearly establishes notability.   Montanabw (talk)  03:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Extremely important academic and one of the most important in about three different areas, very widely known. This is the sort of nomination that can only happen when the nominator is completely clueless about the entire subject area he's making nominations about. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 03:42, 22 October 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.