Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leila J. Rupp

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) Mkativerata (talk) 05:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leila J. Rupp

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly referenced stub about a non notable academic, only claim to fame is editorship of a relatively minor journal. Viridae ^Talk 07:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 08:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to have a h index from GS cites of over 20. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. Nominators should follow WP:BEFORE before nominating an article for AfD, otherwise the time of other editors may be wasted. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Commenters should fcx the article if they dont want it deleted on BLP grounds. Viridae^Talk 01:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:BLP (in the consensus version prior to the current edit war) talks only about the removal of contentious and inadequately sourced material from articles. It also says "Page deletion is normally a last resort" that should be used only when the problems in the article are impossible to fix using less destructive means. What in this article do you think is contentious and what evidence leads you to believe that its sourcing issues are impossible to fix? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets WP:ACADEMIC Vartanza (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per her editorship of the Journal of Women's History (WP:PROF #8). —David Eppstein (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.