Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judith Bailey

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The result was Withdrawn with no other opinions to delete. Apparently WP:PROF#C6 is a thing.... whatever disagreements I have with it are bigger than can be dealt with in an AfD. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Bailey (academic)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

"Former college president" does not seem to meet any specific notability criteria. Of the three sources, two are primary (published by the universities for which she worked), and one is said to be a single article in a local newspaper (can't verify, no link provided). It seems the only thing setting her apart from the hundreds of other non-notable college presidents is about termination at WMU (and I removed an unsourced BLPVIO alleging some sort of misconduct)... but even then WP:1EVENT would apply. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 05:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - president of not one but two universities, therefore meets item No. 6 of WP:NACADEMIC; additionally there are quite a few articles about her. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. University presidents are automatically notable. Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Criteria, point 6: "6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:PROF#C6 as argued above. Notability is not temporary; having held these positions is sufficient. In academic biographies, sources affiliated with the subject (e.g., websites of the universities where they studied or worked) are considered reliable for claims not likely to be challenged (e.g., the years when they studied or worked there). XOR'easter (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily arguing that primary sources are not reliable, merely that they lack the independence to establish notability (WP:42). Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established by the fact of her having been president of two universities, which is amply attested in outside sources (e.g., [1][2][3][4][5][6], not to mention the sources already present in the article, which count even though they require a subscription). XOR'easter (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for nom @Salvidrim!: FYI, determining notability for academics (WP:NACADEMICS) can be a little tricky. They can be highly notable or famed in their field, yet not receive much coverage about their lives in the general press, so thus seemingly fail WP:42. President or chancellor of a university is an extremely prestigious and influential position and typically only comes after a long career, so thus it automatically merits notability on its own (though these people always have a lot of news articles, including when they come and go from their posts, especially at public universities). Also for the future, you have to look for sources before you do an AfD — the fact that before there were only primary sources doesn't mean anything at all, because other sources were plentiful. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Nomination seems to be founded in a lack of understanding of WP:PROF#C6 and of WP:NOTTEMPORARY. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2018 (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.