This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kurykh (talk | contribs) at 16:00, 25 May 2017 (Relisting Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Colleen Patrick-Goudreau). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:00, 25 May 2017 by Kurykh (talk | contribs) (Relisting Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Colleen Patrick-Goudreau)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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)
- Could you be more specific? My current impression is that it has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," see WP:NOTABILITY. Utsill (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC) Categories: