- 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. John254 02:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Paola Cavalieri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
no assertion of notability. Philosopher/author has written some rather obscure titles, but all in all, I feel that author fails WP:BIO standards Keeper | 76 16:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 17:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal rights because I thought they might have informed opinions on the person. -- Lquilter (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am not sure about this person not being notable. Google gives 694 hits (condensed from about 23,000) for "Paola Cavalieri", giving sites in many different countires. This all seems to concern this particular person. This appears to indicate notability. Any reaason why these Google hits should not be taken as an indication that the article needs expansion, not deletion? --Crusio (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A Google scholar search shows that she has often been cited. Definitely notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment.
Sorry, I still don't see notability. Reading the guidelines of WP:BIO, a person is notable if they have been given independent, reliable works/writeups/biographies about them. I did a google scholar search too (before this nomination). What I returned were excerpts from her book(s), which I do not dispute are in existence, although obscure (read the nomination). No one has written about her, though. Her contributions (ie, books) do not contribute significantly to {her} field. If those doing searchs (ie, Phil Bridger), would be kind enough to actually add the sources to the article that assert (reliably) that she has "often been cited", I would be happy to withdraw this nomination. Keeper | 76 22:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. From WP:PROF: "The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course, if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works, if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature". If you did a Google Scholar search you should have noticed, under the very first entry, a link to 94 citations. I'll put a link to the list of citations in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. A Google News search may be more relevant than Google scholar for this particular case. I'm seeing attention to her work in The New York Times, Taipei Times, US News & World Report, Salon, Guardian, etc. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll add here that I did a google news search also, and returned less than 40 hits (similar to what you've linked above.). IMO, none of them assert notability specifically. Please though, add them to the article. An AfD is good for drawing attention to unsourced, non-notable articles. Prove me wrong here - improve the article! Keeper | 76 22:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean by, "none of them assert notability specifically"? Citing to scholars and theorists is occasionally done as "the notable doctor so-and-so" but more usually, simply discussing someone's work is in itself the sign of notability to be sought. Remember that unlike celebrities, scholars are not notable because of their biographies or their personalities but because of their scholarly contributions. Thus, we look to discussions of their work, just as we look to discussions of the particulars of a celebrities' celebrated life. --Lquilter (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the book with Singer is a very famous and important book indeed, probably well worth an article by itself. Google News in not like Google--its not the count that matters, but the material found there. finding 2 significant stories there in major sources about somebody is fully sufficient for establishing the notability--of an academic or anyone else. David E, please add them, so we dont have to indiviudally repeat the search. 03:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)DGG (talk)
- Here you go. Oh, and keep. The fact that her name seems to be current in such a wide selection of international sources convinces me that she is notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep-This one needs a chance. It is valid.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 06:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per DGG. --Crusio (talk) 08:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - sourceable. Activists, scholars, writers, etc., are known by their works, not their personal details. WP:BIO has to be applied carefully. Wikidemo (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 'comment the review sources I asked for have now been supplied, and the notability is clear. snow close, perhaps.DGG (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing nomination based on vastly improved article. Thanks for fixing this and finding what I apparently couldn't find with several google (and news and scholar) searches. Please let me assert that I attempted to fix this article with citations before nominating and simply wasn't finding what other editors apparently found quite easily. 40 lashes for Keeper. My apologies for dragging this out, the article asserts notability just fine now, IMO. Changing my position to keep. Keeper | 76 15:41, 23 November 2007 (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.