This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Please note there are many new sources to this revamped version (deleted over a year ago) that I think she well meets the WP:GNG in terms of sources, publishing history, awards, etc.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what RS's change subject to notable?[edit]
As a reminder, the decision to delete this article was UNANIMOUS, except for the single editor who is trying to re-instate the article in violation of that clear consensus.
That said, new RS's come out in the world, and notability changes. But what exactly has changed with this one? As was already said in the deletion discussion, media mentions are all well and good, but do not meet WP:PROF. Changes/improvements to the quality of the article are also fine, but AfD's are not (were not) based on article quality. Despite the claims of the single hold-out of an editor, no new RS has been added that would answer the problems already discussed at the AfD.
Please list exactly what new RS's now meet PROF, or (if going for GNG) what exactly has changed that did not meet GNG before but does now?
In the absence of that, this re-float seems merely like a violation of the (again) otherwise unanimous consensus. Barcaboy2 (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a much improved article, with excellent references; the old article which had been AfD-ed lacked the good sources. If you feel this article is unworthy, feel free to AfD it, but a quick glance at the references and content will show that this subject easily meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This page should not be speedily deleted because... there have been significant improvements with new references and the former subject should never have been deleted in the first place. The previous supposed "unanimous" voting for deletion was mostly based on reviewers looking at the previous ill-referenced version. I believe that what is really going on here is one academic deleting the articles of academics with opposing viewpoints, not deleting based on the merits of the subject.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
