| Revision as of 11:46, 18 May 2017 editAlansohn (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers505,053 edits Keep← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:28, 18 May 2017 edit undoUtsill (talk | contribs)222 edits →Colleen Patrick-Goudreau: rNext edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. '''<span style="text-shadow:#00FFFF ;font-family:Vladimir Script;0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">]]</span>''' 06:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)</small> | :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. '''<span style="text-shadow:#00FFFF ;font-family:Vladimir Script;0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">]]</span>''' 06:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)</small> | ||
| *'''Keep''' She passes under CREATIVE for the reviews of her work. I've added the information to the article and cleaned it up. I hope {{u|Utsill}} will take another look. :) ] (]) 22:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' She passes under CREATIVE for the reviews of her work. I've added the information to the article and cleaned it up. I hope {{u|Utsill}} will take another look. :) ] (]) 22:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC) | ||
| :The article looks better now, but could you be more specific in which reviews you think qualify her as ] and which criteria she falls under? I see she has been mentioned in and , but those are commentaries, not RS's, i.e. news coverage. See ].The ref seems to just be a passing mention for an event blurb. ] (]) 12:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' The scope of her published works and the reliable and verifiable sources provided meet the notability standard. ] (]) 11:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' The scope of her published works and the reliable and verifiable sources provided meet the notability standard. ] (]) 11:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 12:28, 18 May 2017
Colleen Patrick-Goudreau
- Colleen Patrick-Goudreau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find RS's so it appears to not meet the notability criteria. Utsill (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 02:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 02:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep She passes under CREATIVE for the reviews of her work. I've added the information to the article and cleaned it up. I hope Utsill will take another look. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The article looks better now, but could you be more specific in which reviews you think qualify her as WP:CREATIVE and which criteria she falls under? I see she has been mentioned in NPR and HuffPo, but those are commentaries, not RS's, i.e. news coverage. See WP:NEWSORG.The Boston Globe ref seems to just be a passing mention for an event blurb. Utsill (talk) 12:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep The scope of her published works and the reliable and verifiable sources provided meet the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)